HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-2020 Council PacketAgenda
Council Meeting
Monday, October 12, 2020 6:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us
The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not
on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
Consent Agenda
1. City Council Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2020
2. Council Work Session Minutes of September 28, 2020
3. Claims/Bills
4. Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2014A
5. Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2016A
6. Approval of Rental License
7. Hennepin County 2021 Contract Amendment for Residential Recycling Grant – Resolution
8. City Hall Reception Area COVID19 Remodel
9. Approval to Accept Donations for Big Island Park
10. LA20-000058 – Mark & Mary Enger, 2697 Casco Point Road, Variance – Resolution
11. LA20-000062 – Bob Molstad with Sathre-Bergquist o/b/o Ellen Forcier, 4780 North Arm Drive West,
Variances – Resolution
12. 2520 Casco Point Road, Ron and Holly Rocca, Accessory Building Removal Agreement
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in
discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff
for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at
the podium before speaking.
13. Andrew Meyers House District 33B
Public Works/City Engineer Report
14. Holiday Tree Lighting Event Request For Funds
Planning Department Report
15. LA20-000056 – Kuhl Design Build, 3249 Casco Circle, Variance
16. LA20-000057 – Michael Gallus Construction, Inc., 1985 Fagerness Point Road, Variances
17. LA20-000052 – Mark Rausch o/b/o University of St. Thomas and David Weekly Homes, NW corner
of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd., Concept Plan Review
18. LA20-000060 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Amendments to Variances
19. LA20-000047 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Boat Storage
Agenda
Council Meeting
Monday, October 12, 2020 6:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us
20. LA20-000065 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Dry-buildable Definition
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator Report
City Attorney Report
21. Flag Policy
22. Land Acquisition of 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North
Closed Session
23. The meeting will be closed as permitted by §13D.05, Subd. 3(a), to evaluate the performance of the
City Administrator, Dustin Rief
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2020
10-12-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
10-12-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
10-19-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Richard Crosby)
10-26-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
10-26-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
11-02-20 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
11-03-20 Election Day, Presidential Election
11-09-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
11-09-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
11-11-20 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed
11-13-20 Special City Council Meeting to Canvass 2020 Election Results, Friday, 9:00 a.m.
11-16-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Aaron Printup)
11-23-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
11-23-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
12-07-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 9
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup and Victoria
Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam
Edwards and City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Before the approval of the agenda, Edwards noted regarding Crystal Bay Park there is a $300,000
placeholder in 2028, he asked the Council to re-prioritize that and bring it to 2021, as there is dire need of
playground equipment, which he thinks is more important. His guidance would be to look into a
playground structure similar to what Navarre has.
Walsh stated that would be something to bring back to the Park Commission with instruction to re-
prioritize.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2020
3. CLAIMS/BILLS
4. SET SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO CANVAS ELECTION RESULTS FOR
NOVEMBER 13, 2020 AT 9:00 A.M.
5. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER RETIREMENT AND RECRUITMENT
6. SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL FOR CITY FACILITIES
7. APPROVAL OF DATA PRIVACY PROGRAM
8. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATIONS
Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Adam Edwards, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, Retired, 5113 South Lake Shore Drive,
Independence, said the reason he wants to address the Council with his former title is to discuss a
particular consternation and trouble over the last couple weeks. He is here to request that the Council
restore the honor to the National colors that flies in front of the City Hall, above the Veteran’s Memorial
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 9
and at the entrance to a polling place. He believes for two weeks they’ve been violating U.S. Code for the
way the flag is to be respected and dishonoring the National colors. He said he’s spent his entire life
respecting that flag and what it stands for, it’s been fundamental in how he’s live his life. From raising
that flag in his hometown in Michigan as a Boy Scout, to taking his oath at West Point, to administering
the Oath of Enlistment to hundreds of soldiers throughout his military career, that flag has always been
present. It is the same flag he wore on his shoulder as they went into Bosnia in 1995; the same flag that
flew over Ground Zero right after 9/11 when he took soldiers there to restore power; the same flag that
was flying when he landed in Afghanistan for the first time at the air field; the same flag that was draped
over caskets during his two tours in Iraq as they loaded their fallen onto the back of aircrafts to be flown
home. It is the same flag that was handed to him on his last day in the Army when he retired and left
active service and one day, he hopes it will be the flag handed to his next-of-kin. Mr. Edwards stated the
flag has importance as a symbol and there are certain rules of etiquette and a number of laws have been
passed at the National level in the Flag Code, which specifically speaks in the Section on Respect for the
Flag, Sub-paragraph G, “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to
it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.” In Sub-section I it
states, “The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner. Advertising signs should
not be fastened to the staff or the halyard from which the flag is flown.” Mr. Edwards continued saying
he is 100% behind supporting other uniformed services, including Police and Fire, and the U.S. Code
authorizes the wearing of the patch of the American Flag on the shoulder of their uniforms. He said there
are a lot of good intentions in the community, if someone took the American Flag and took the Thin Blue
Line Flag and superimposed the two of them, they created this (image showed onscreen), which many
people are referring to as the Blue Lives Matter flag. He said personally, as a piece of art or something to
hang on the wall, it is fine, but he doesn’t think this meets U.S. Flag Code and has any place on the
flagpole that flies in front of Orono’s Government Building, above the Veteran’s Memorial and in front of
the polling place. His plea is to honor the Police Department, but to do it in another fashion and in
another way that isn’t on the same flagpole flying a device that doesn’t meet the U.S. Flag Code. He said
he’d be happy to help in finding other ways to do that.
Printup agreed, noting it doesn’t mean the Council is against anything or for something more, he thinks
with a very simple amended motion it can be fixed that gives the integrity to the American Flag which
they all absolutely love and cherish, just by moving it somewhere else.
Crosby stated he never thought by extending support for their Police Department, who to him are under
tremendous strain right now, denigrates the American Flag in any way. To him, if one denigrates the
American Flag, they’re denigrating the exact flag. He said he’s taken Mr. Edwards’ comments to heart
and reached out to two Veterans he knows; one is a gentleman that his daughter is engaged to, and he
replied if Crosby was asking if the Blue Line Flag is offensive, of course not, but he’s also a cop (MP).
He said he loves that flag, and it represents the sacrifice police officers make to keep us and the American
public safe every day. People understand what that flag means and that it is support for the Police
Department, and he doesn’t think necessarily all Veterans view it as a degradation of the American Flag.
Crosby asked another gentleman who is dating his youngest daughter who served several tours in Iraq as
a Marine, and he replied it does not offend him. Crosby noted he politely disagrees with Mr. Edwards,
he’s not opposed to taking the flag down and replacing with the one that was purchased, but it has
symbolism of a City Council that supports its Police Department, it was a gift to their Police Chief to
hang at Orono City Hall. He said it’s no disrespect to Mr. Edwards’ service or anyone serviceman’s
service. Crosby has the highest and utmost regard for the people who serve this country, so much that
after 9/11 he felt he had to do something to show his respect and that was Crosby serving as a firefighter
for 10 years and risking his life to honor the people that died on 9/11, and he also lost a friend on that day.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 9
He respects all servicemen and women and in everything he does and with his actions; he thanks them
when he sees them, if they’re at a restaurant, he often buys them lunch anonymously and walks away after
thanking them. If he sees someone with a Veterans hat on, he pays them the due respect, and gives the
Vietnam Veterans the respect they deserve that they never received and noted he was unfortunately too
young during Vietnam, but he did recognize what those Vets had to go through. Crosby stated he loves
Veterans in the deepest core of his soul so flying this flag is no disrespect to the American Flag, and no
disrespect to any Veteran; it is simply letting our Police officers know, both men and women, that the
City of Orono supports them in what they do, the City cares about them, and their lives are important. He
said there is no other ill-will or ill-intended message sent with this flag. He is sorry something that was
supposed to be positive is being looked at in a disparaged light; however, he stands behind it, as it was a
gift from Crosby to the Police Chief in showing support from this Council. He said he does not disrespect
the American Flag.
Johnson said in his dealings with Mr. Edwards, he doesn’t find him very loud or opinionated, so for him
to stand up and let the Council know his feelings is really appreciated. Speaking for himself, when the
Council took action at the time, he honestly didn’t give it much thought, but thought they’d show support
for the people they ask to go out into the field and service the City. He would like to separate the emotion
from the reality because he knows it’s coming from Crosby’s heart, but in Johnson’s opinion, he didn’t
ask any questions before he agreed to pass the motion and if he had to do it over again, he would’ve asked
more questions. The first question he would have asked is if the Police Department wanted the show of
support from the Council, and noted he has a son in the Army right now. If he could do it again, he
would’ve said “no, let’s keep that separate.” He also noted a logistics component of having two flags on
the flagpole at the same time. He would be in favor of taking down the Police flag/blue line flag, and
would like to come up with a specific time and policy – one or two days a year that are police recognition
days, the anniversary of the passing of Officer Matthews – to fly the Police flag proudly.
Mr. Edwards asked to clarify one thing to Mr. Crosby, stating his intention in standing up today was not
to disparage the offer or the support for both service members as well as other uniformed services. His
concern is not with showing support for the Police Department; he wholeheartedly agrees with that.
However, his concern is the way in which they are displaying a flag on the City-owned and maintained
flagpole over the Veteran’s Memorial, noting it’s the one place they should strictly follow the Code and
etiquette. Mr. Edwards said he was heartened by what Crosby had done, in fact they went out and bought
other flags for the other organizations, the Fire Department, etcetera, so they’d be available to honor those
folks, as well. He said on the Public Works side, they installed brackets around the tall light poles in the
parking lot so different commemorative flags could be flown in and around City Hall.
Crosby said he wouldn’t be opposed to transferring the Police Flag to another pole and meeting halfway,
if Mr. Edwards feels that it is important to him.
Mayor Walsh said he agrees with what everyone is saying; he likes the policy part, and they can put the
Fire Department Flag up, also. He thinks the country is at a crossroads of some very spooky situations
and he doesn’t think it’s the time to start backing down, as he’s not about to do that for anything at this
point. He stated he’d like to be very careful about just taking the Police Flag down, because it would also
send the wrong message.
Crosby noted he’s received many positive emails and phone calls.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 9
Mayor Walsh noted there are a lot of things going on that don’t meet policy or procedure anywhere right
now and it’s all about destruction and non-support, and the Council’s support is vitally important to make
sure the service members and citizens understand where they stand unrepentantly.
Crosby and Mayor Walsh discussed having flags for the services the City provides, which are Police and
Fire.
Printup can absolutely support that, saying God Bless America; God Bless the Police; God Bless
Veterans.
The Council agreed to move the flag to another pole, and work on creating a policy in the future.
Crosby asked the Police Chief, who was present at the meeting, if he’s okay with this consensus.
Police Chief Farniok answered in the affirmative.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
9. Winter Maintenance of Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails
Edwards said over the last year they’ve talked about taking on portions of the Three Rivers District Trail
network and it is that time of year to send the paperwork in to them for the upcoming season. He wants to
reconfirm what the Council has talked about in work sessions and this is indeed something the City wants
to spend resources on. If so, Edwards made adjustments to the City’s snow and ice policy and as they
talked about in today’s work session there is a piece of equipment recommended on the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) in 2021. He stated if the Council is amenable, they’d like to pull the
procurement of that equipment up so they’d have it for at least part of this season. Edwards said he took
away from recent meetings that the Council would like to take on the Dakota Regional Trail within the
City boundaries, and sections of the Independence Trail.
Crosby asked if Edwards factored out the cost structure for Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach.
Edwards replied no, but the City gets $500 per mile, per season from Three Rivers Park District. If Orono
plowed regional trails through other communities, they’d still qualify for that; the part they’d need to
discuss with sister communities is whether they will help contribute to make up the difference between
what Three Rivers reimburses versus what it would actually cost to do that work. He noted he hasn’t
calculated those numbers yet.
Printup said he loves the idea.
Seals agreed.
Printup is glad Johnson brought it up in the past, and said this is a great way to give back to residents and
offer something more for them.
Johnson stated he thinks Orono doing this will put pressure on the other cities as well, because people will
be using the trails.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 9
Mayor Walsh noted it will be interesting to see how it goes.
Johnson asked if it will be a singular pass on the trails.
Edwards replied he thinks it will be a down-and-back, and in a typical snow they do a pass with the blade
to get the bulk of the snow off and because it’s a walking surface, they often come back a couple days
later with a broom to try and get some additional materials off to encourage melting and reduce slip
hazards.
Johnson recommends that Orono should publicize what the snow removal policy is going to be in the
newsletter, to advertise that they’re doing this as a service to the community and to outline what the
removal schedule might look like to set some expectations. He noted that it’s not a City street and will be
de-prioritized, as public streets and sidewalks are priority, and this trail will come after those.
Edwards said in the amended policy, they adjusted the re-gain time from 24 hours to 36 hours (the time in
a typical storm they think they can get everything cleared. He also laid out in the policy that the trails
would be done during normal business hours (they wouldn’t necessarily pull crews in at 4:00 a.m. to work
on trails or on a Saturday or Sunday).
Johnson noted when they advertise, they should call it a pilot program so people know the City is trying
to see what resources it takes and what use the trails receive from it.
Crosby said they should definitely reach out to the sister cities to see what kind of cooperation and
budgeting they can get.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve Winter Maintenance of Three Rivers Park District
Regional Trails. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
FINANCE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
10. Adopt 2021 Preliminary Tax Levy
Finance Director Ron Olson gave a presentation for the next two agenda items (10 and 11) noting the
Preliminary Tax Levy will be set tonight and once it is set it cannot be increased; it can only be decreased.
There are two resolutions for the Preliminary Tax Levy tonight one being what was presented to the
Council at a work session in August and the second regarding the discussion about letting the tax rate go
up a bit in order to properly fund infrastructure needs. The Council will need to let Staff know which
resolution they will be acting upon. Olson stated the final levy and budget will be adopted on December
7, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. and public input will be allowed at the meeting. Olson said the major revenue source
for the General Fund, at about 53% of the budget, is Property Taxes. Governmental revenue will be
going down because of the Toward Zero Deaths grant, a program the Police Department participates in
and noted in years when Orono hosts the program, they record the revenue and expenses and next year it
will be someone else’s agency so Orono won’t have that in revenue, but also won’t have expenses in
regards to that. He said total general government services is also decreasing and public safety charges are
going up.
Crosby asked when comparing Orono’s property taxes to other cities, which cities are typically 65%
revenue source from property taxes.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 9
Olson said that would be any of the cities surrounding Orono, some of them are in the 70% range for
property taxes.
Crosby said the comparison to other cities might be something to put in the newsletter to show the public
that Orono is holding their Tax Levy down.
Seals noted they’ve hesitated to do that in the past, and her Dad showed her what he gets from Edina and
they have no problem putting it out there; she reported Orono was the lowest, so she thinks they shouldn’t
be afraid to, because the numbers are a data point.
Crosby said they do strive to keep taxes down.
Johnson said Orono is 53% of their budget at a reduced percentage compared to neighboring cities, on top
of that.
Olson noted some of those other cities receive State aid and Orono does not, other than for Police State
aid. He summarized the expenditure budget by department, pointing out the Police budget only increased
$16,000, which is only approximately one-third of a percent. He stated he wants to give Chief Farniok
credit for keeping his budget under control and noted he’s worked for some cities where Police Chiefs
were very egotistical and just want to see their budget increase and increase. He said Orono does not
have a Chief like that. He continued saying street maintenance is budgeted to increase $32,000 (with
wages and benefits driving most of the increase); Parks wage, step increases and the new position split
between janitorial and parks are $49,000; Golf course is $13,200, noting in the 2020 budget they didn’t
have part-time wages, and this is just making the budget match the reality of what is happening.
Crosby asked if the Council got a raise.
Seals replied no, but you do occasionally get a sandwich.
Crosby asked why the Mayor/Council budget is up and has increased.
Rief believes it was related to one of their memberships.
Olson continued in talking about governmental services and wages, and that wages are basically the
budget as there is very little discretionary spending that doesn’t involve personal services and especially
when adding in the $1.5 million in professional services. He noted $7.45 million of a $9.2 million budget
has to do with whether people are employees of the City or services that are contracted out. He likes to
point that out because two departments have money that isn’t wages (streets as they have street supplies;
and Police because of training, uniforms, etcetera). With many of the other departments it’s pretty much
employees and some training. Olson continued the presentation saying if they look at the school, County
and City portions of property tax bills, normally it’s right around 27-29% and they’re all pretty equal.
Looking at the City’s portion in Orono, it’s only 15% of the property tax bill. Olson noted there are two
resolutions tonight. The first increases the tax levy to $6.485 million which would keep the tax rate pretty
much equal (decreasing it by .009%). The second resolution has an additional $125,000 in the levy,
16.512% to 16.821% (increasing it by .3%). Olson explained what that means for a home; if they go up
to $6.485 million, and the levy is at 16.503%, people would actually see a slight decrease in their City
property tax, assuming that their property value did not change. The second resolution is $6.6 million and
on a $2 million home, that would increase someone’s City portion of property taxes by $73.00; on a
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 9
$250,000 home it would increase $7.27. Olson noted it would be a 1.87% increase in taxes with the
additional levy, and even if they went with that additional levy the tax capacity is back where the City
was in 2017, which would still be a significant decrease from 2014. He stated keeping the rate flat for
four years is something to be proud of.
Mayor Walsh added they should also be proud of paying off millions of dollars in debt and bringing the
road pavement levies up at the same time. He noted on the slide onscreen, he asked Olson to use 2014
(his first year on the Council), 2017 (his first year as Mayor), and he wants people to understand in 2014
if they owned a $300,000 house, they were paying $534 in taxes to Orono, and in 2021 if they choose
option B, they would only be paying $504. In essentially 7 years on the same value home, homeowners
are paying less in City taxes. He noted the Council has lowered taxes, payed off $7 million in debt since
2014, taken the pavement management levy from $0 to $750,000, is starting the parks budget at $50,000
and is starting/supplementing the building fund as well as lowering everyone’s taxes. He said what
people see in the paper, which can be a bit misleading, is that this might be an 8% increase in the general
levy, but it’s less than 2% of their taxes going up. From 7 years ago, it’s still 5% less or more.
Seals said she feels the City Council can do a better job of communicating this to the public, because she
understands when people receive their property tax bill it has gone up, but they’re not just looking at the
City portion, they’re looking at the County and the Total, which will change. On a good note, their home
values most likely went up, but they may not be isolating the portion where they’re actually being charged
less per their dollar. Seals stated they have multiple avenues to communicate and give the facts over and
over.
Mayor Walsh noted in his newsletter column, he points out often that they’re paying off millions of
dollars and have not taken on any additional debt, while increasing fund balances to take care of the City.
He reported past administrations have said they didn’t raise the levy at all…but they borrowed $2 million
dollars and then they’d borrow another $1 million dollars and just kept adding up the debt load.
Crosby said they really need to strongly identify the other pieces of the pie, i.e. Hennepin County and
perhaps including graphs going back in time to see where the County has gone percentage-wise, noting
he’d hate to see what happened in Minneapolis…
Printup said one thing they’ve talked about are the utility bill postcards that go out and he wonders if
there is something else, they can use rather than the same redundant postcard. He thinks they could
explore what other cities do, and look at a full-size mailer with lots of information, including the graphs,
the information on the debt and a look behind the scenes.
Seals noted they could do a fact of the month, something super clear that catches people’s attention, but
over time gets the message out.
Crosby said it would be educating the public and giving them the facts.
Mayor Walsh said people should know the success that their City is having.
Printup said part of the reason he is comfortable with the levy is that they don’t know what next year is
going to hold, noting Hennepin County is identifying a 0% levy and they don’t usually do that…he asked
what does that mean a year from now; what will they do?
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 9
Mayor Walsh said it means Hennepin County could be bonding millions and millions.
Printup noted that trickle down affects Orono greatly, so if they can start identifying and planning for the
next budget and the one after, to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Mayor Walsh said one of the good things from this Council and the previous one is that they’ve begun
looking at the numbers a lot more, looking at the permanent revenues per month and tracking things to
understand where they’re at each month.
Crosby said just think of the billions of dollars the State could have saved by having the proper action
early on. The taxpayers will be saddled with bills.
Seals asked Olson if they paid $30,000-plus for outside services (janitorial/maintenance), is the $17,000
over and above that.
Olson said he was just pointing out that wages and benefits went up by $167,000 and that was part of the
increase, noting in Central Services they were paying for janitorial services. He clarified that one did go
down as they took janitorial out of Central Services. He said he wants to make sure everyone caught in
the memo that the $125,000 is set to go into the General Fund levy and then they can transfer it out to
wherever they want it to go. If the Council knows tonight where they want it to go, they could designate
that.
Mayor Walsh noted he believes they want $50,000 in the Parks Fund, and another $100,000 in the
Building Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Olson said they could put the additional $125,000 all into the Building Fund.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt the Resolution setting the Tax Levy to $6,610,620, as
amended to put the additional $125,000 into the Building Fund. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
11. Adopt 2021 Preliminary General Fund Budget
Mayor Walsh noted this would be Resolution B $9, 385,500.
Olson said the Council could still choose Resolution A because the $125,000 is not there as they put it
into a different fund.
Mayor Walsh said they would look at Resolution A $9,260,500.
Seals moved, Printup seconded, to adopt Resolution A for the 2021 Preliminary General Fund
Budget. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Crosby said Happy Birthday to his big sister.
Johnson had nothing report.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 28, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 9
Printup said they received positive feedback regarding the Salvation Army at City Hall next month on
October 17, 2020 from 8:00 a.m. – Noon for the City’s Fall Clean-up, and the bike people would be there
receiving donated bikes. He noted the City is getting things done for the people.
Seals reported they decided to go ahead with the Christmas Tree Lighting because by the time December
hits, she thinks people will feel pretty cooped up and may want to be outside. She said they will try to
keep as many people outside of the clubhouse and will be proposing doing the Tree Lighting and Sliding,
multiple fires so they can have North Mallow (a gourmet s’more bar who will be sponsoring the event)
there and try to get donations from other companies to have hot dogs and brats. She will find out if the
Boy Scouts are willing to help create a cool Christmas village, hoping to have reindeer, and she’s trying
to find a sponsor for winter fireworks. They’re trying to keep costs in check so are looking for sponsors
to help.
Mayor Walsh noted everyone should watch the Presidential Debates, and he is surprised it’s the end of
September already. He said they had a bunch of great emails from Orono citizens regarding the Blue
Line Flag, thanking the Council for doing that and noted Crosby even called many of the citizens to talk
to them.
CLOSED SESSION
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to close the Orono City Council meeting and go into a Closed
Session at 7:11 p.m. as permitted by §13D.03 to discuss the City’s labor negotiation strategy
related to the City’s negotiations with Local No. 12 Union. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Orono City Council
Work Session Minutes
Monday, September 28, 2020
Council Chambers
5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals,
Printup and Matt Johnson. Staff members present were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Public
Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, and City Clerk Anna
Carlson.
1. Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Presentation by MCWD
Planning Director of Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Becky Christopher provided an
overview of the work, findings and recommendations of the Long Lake Creek
Subwatershed assessment. Christopher asked the Council for feedback about how the
process is going and if the plan meets their needs. Christopher mentioned that the Orono
Golf Course Wetland Restorations in Orono are one that they would like to implement
into the project for reduction of lead within the next five years. She added that the
implementation is assumed to be primarily grant dependent. She also mentioned the
district will develop and maintain grant strategy by evaluation projects against potential
grant sources to determine the best fit. She noted that most grants do a 10-25% match or
cash in hand.
Mayor Dennis Walsh mentioned that the Council is all for applying for all the grants they
can get. He added that he is conscience of what the City and Long Lake Creek
Subwatershed uses the tax dollars for. He added that the City has been fairly aggressive
about applying for grants and that staff has a lot of experience applying for them. He
stated that if Long Lake Creek Subwatershed is willing to send those opportunities our
way the City would pursue as needed.
Council Member Matt Johnson asked how they collect their data. Christopher gave a
brief overview of how the data is determined.
2. Parks and Equipment CIP Discussion
Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards went over the Parks and Equipment
Outlay fund draft. Edwards discussed the various vehicles and equipment that are
recommended for replacement in 2021.
There was discussion about the benefits for some of the equipment as well as the
necessity to either have or not have it. The Council also recommended a few changes
that could be used for funding.
Edwards mentioned that the Park Commission discussed where they would like to
prioritize funding.
Orono City Council
Work Session Minutes
Monday, September 28, 2020
Council Chambers
5:00 p.m.
Meeting Adjourned: 6:01 p.m.
CITY OF ORONO:
__________________________________
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for
services and/or products provided to the City.
2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed
the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks
114906 to 115005, totaling $439,408.51.
3. Noteworthy Payments.
Vendor
Amount
Description of Payment
#114934 American Environmental
$38,952.30
Payment for 2020 sanitary sewer televising.
#114940 Cargill $15,832.62
Payment for softener salt for the Navarre water plant and
for road salt in preparation for the 2020-2021 Winter
season.
#114988 Orono Woods
Apartments
$71,306.00
Payment to Orono Woods for 2nd half of 2019 through 1st
half of 2020 Tax Increment Financing. This was collected
with prior years’ tax levies.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims
list as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the claims list as presented.
Exhibits
A. Check Register
Item No.: 3 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Claims/Bills
Presenter: Ron Olson
Finance Director
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
MCB BANK - HSA 09/29/2020 114906 092420 101-21717 HSA 09/24/20 233.34
Total 114906:233.34
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 09/29/2020 114907 091720 101-21704 PERA 7/15/18 - 7/18/20 2,015.43
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 09/29/2020 114907 143117 101-21704 PERA - CREDIT OVERPAYMENT 621.51-
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 09/29/2020 114907 143117 101-21704 PERA 9/7/20-9/20/20 38,050.84
Total 114907:39,444.76
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 09/30/2020 114908 093020 601-49400-322 9/20 UTILITY BILLS Water 225.16
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 09/30/2020 114908 093020 602-49450-322 9/20 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 225.17
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 09/30/2020 114908 093020 651-49910-322 9/20 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 225.17
Total 114908:675.50
BCA FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 10/01/2020 114909 093020 101-42110-319 FIRGERPRINTING Police Department 33.25
Total 114909:33.25
Hennepin County 10/01/2020 114910 100120 101-19999 BAIL - WARRANT #20412442 ARNES 78.00
Total 114910:78.00
BARNWOOD GROUP INC 10/02/2020 114911 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000078 360 BIG ISLAN 1,000.00
BARNWOOD GROUP INC 10/02/2020 114911 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000078 360 BIG ISLAN 30.00-
BARNWOOD GROUP INC 10/02/2020 114911 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D19-000001 360 BIG ISLAND 1,000.00
BARNWOOD GROUP INC 10/02/2020 114911 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND D19-000001 360 BIG ISLAND 30.00-
Total 114911:1,940.00
COHEN, ANDREW & KATHERIN 10/02/2020 114912 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000102 10,000.00
Total 114912:10,000.00
David Weekley Homes 10/02/2020 114913 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000143 535 SANDHILL 10,000.00
David Weekley Homes 10/02/2020 114913 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000143 535 SANDHILL 30.00-
David Weekley Homes 10/02/2020 114913 100120-1 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000129 490 SANDHILL 1,000.00
David Weekley Homes 10/02/2020 114913 100120-1 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000129 490 SANDHILL 30.00-
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114913:10,940.00
DMK HOMES LLC 10/02/2020 114914 100120 101-22205 REFUND ESCROW RPS19-000049 1055 NORTH 1,000.00
Total 114914:1,000.00
GARDENEER INC 10/02/2020 114915 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND Z20-000019 3516 IVY PLACE 1,000.00
Total 114915:1,000.00
HAYES & SONS EXC INC 10/02/2020 114916 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND SE20-000013 765 LAKEVIEW 1,000.00
Total 114916:1,000.00
HENDEL HOMES 10/02/2020 114917 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-01054 3345 FOX ST 9,000.00
Total 114917:9,000.00
Ishaug, Jennifer 10/02/2020 114918 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000098 4245 CHIPPEW 700.00
Total 114918:700.00
Marcel Smits 10/02/2020 114919 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-01054 3345 FOX ST 1,000.00
Marcel Smits 10/02/2020 114919 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000055 3345 FOX ST 700.00
Marcel Smits 10/02/2020 114919 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000055 3345 FOX ST 21.00-
Total 114919:1,679.00
MARIANI, DAVE 10/02/2020 114920 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS18-000011 1175 HOMEST 10,000.00
MARIANI, DAVE 10/02/2020 114920 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS18-000011 1175 HOMEST 300.00-
Total 114920:9,700.00
MILLER, SCOTT & MICHELLE 10/02/2020 114921 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2011-01402 85 OLD CRYSTAL 2,000.00
MILLER, SCOTT & MICHELLE 10/02/2020 114921 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2011-01484 85 OLD CRYSTAL 700.00
Total 114921:2,700.00
MILLOW ELECTRIC 10/02/2020 114922 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND ROW20-000053 3393 CRYSTA 1,500.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114922:1,500.00
NORTON HOMES 10/02/2020 114923 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000066 690 PINEHUR 10,000.00
Total 114923:10,000.00
ROBERT LINDEN CONSTRUCTI 10/02/2020 114924 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS18-000077 801 TONKAWA 1,000.00
ROBERT LINDEN CONSTRUCTI 10/02/2020 114924 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RAS18-000077 801 TONKAWA 30.00-
Total 114924:970.00
City of Wayzata\DMV 10/07/2020 114925 100620 101-42110-441 DUPLICATE TITLE - 2000 GMC Police Department 20.50
Total 114925:20.50
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 10/08/2020 114926 100820 101-21705 457 - 10/8/2020 2,151.00
Total 114926:2,151.00
MCB BANK - HSA 10/08/2020 114927 100820 101-21717 HSA 10/08/20 233.34
Total 114927:233.34
MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-10/08/2020 114928 100820 101-21718 PEHSCP - 10/08/20 2,317.60
Total 114928:2,317.60
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 10/08/2020 114929 100820-ROT 101-21705 ROTH - 10/8/20 200.00
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 10/08/2020 114929 100820-USC 101-21705 457 - 10/8/20 1,045.00
Total 114929:1,245.00
OPTUM 10/08/2020 114930 100820 101-21717 HSA - 10/08/20 3,435.30
Total 114930:3,435.30
ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 10/08/2020 114931 10072020-1 101-21705 457 - 10/8/20 1,320.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114931:1,320.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 10/12/2020 114932 425030772 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 9/20/19-10/20/19 121.76
Total 114932:121.76
ALLSTREAM 10/12/2020 114933 17079845 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 09/23-10/22/20 Police Department 313.63
ALLSTREAM 10/12/2020 114933 17079845 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 09/23-10/22/20 Central Services 439.07
ALLSTREAM 10/12/2020 114933 17079845 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 09/23-10/22/20 Water 73.18
ALLSTREAM 10/12/2020 114933 17079845 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 09/23-10/22/20 Sewer 167.27
ALLSTREAM 10/12/2020 114933 17079845 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 09/23-10/22/20 Golf Course 52.27
Total 114933:1,045.42
American Environmental LLC 10/12/2020 114934 1877 602-49450-406 2020 SEWER TELEVISING Sewer 38,952.30
Total 114934:38,952.30
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 10/12/2020 114935 372466 101-42110-240 RADAR REMOTE FOR SQUAD #248 Police Department 132.00
Total 114935:132.00
ASPEN EQUIPMENT 10/12/2020 114936 10220586 701-49800-221 SNOW PLOW REPLACEMENT - UNIT 428 6,050.00
Total 114936:6,050.00
Aspen Mills 10/12/2020 114937 262087 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - PALM Police Department 138.50
Total 114937:138.50
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 10/12/2020 114938 2466447 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE Golf Course 118.20
Total 114938:118.20
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 082520 101-41410-319 COVID 19 - FLOOR DECALS FOR POLLING PLAC Elections 227.85
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 090120-1 101-41300-433 NOTARY STAMP - A JOHNSON Administration 33.32
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 091420 101-41110-439 FOOD FOR CC MEETING 9/14/20 Mayor & Council 76.24
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 091420-1 101-41110-439 FOOD FOR CC MEETING 9/14/20 Mayor & Council 19.52
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092420 101-42110-228 MEALS FOR 4 TRAINING Police Department 66.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092420-1 101-42110-402 FUEL - SQUAD #256 Police Department 20.01
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092620 101-42110-439 ROTARY PROJECT Police Department 9.96
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092820 101-42110-437 FAA - UAV TEST Police Department 15.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092820-1 101-41110-439 FOOD FOR COUNCIL MEETING 9-28-20 Mayor & Council 20.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 092920 701-49800-402 VEHICLE REPAIR - UNIT 409 TASK 49245 98.80
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 093020 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND PROJECT 19-033 261.25
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 100120 101-42110-437 IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING - RUSSETH Police Department 99.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 100120-1 101-42110-437 IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING -SILTALA JANE AND BR Police Department 297.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 100620 101-45200-225 BIG ISLAND SECURITY CAMERA LICENSE Parks 19.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/12/2020 114939 100620-1 710-49970-221 OST/PST CONVERTER 106.45
Total 114939:1,371.36
CARGILL SALT 10/12/2020 114940 2905675817 601-49400-216 SOFTENER SALT Water 5,207.84
CARGILL SALT 10/12/2020 114940 2905703214 101-43000-224 TREATED ROAD SALT - 2020-2021 SNOW SEAS Public Works Department 10,624.62
Total 114940:15,832.46
CECE S SIGNS 10/12/2020 114941 8484 101-42110-221 SIGN FOR PD GATE Police Department 30.00
Total 114941:30.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 10/12/2020 114942 092320 602-49450-381 1302 SHORELINE - GAS 8/20 -9/21/20 Sewer 25.65
Total 114942:25.65
CENTURY LINK 10/12/2020 114943 091920 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET Golf Course 225.04
Total 114943:225.04
CHARLES CUDD 10/12/2020 114944 100620 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000132 3237 SHADY 10,000.00
Total 114944:10,000.00
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 1062717427 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 3.50
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 1062717427 101-43000-226 UNIFORM Public Works Department 50.81
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 4063271336 101-41900-404 MATS/AIR SERVICE - CITY HALL Central Services 21.92
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 4063271413 101-41900-404 MAT SERVICE - CC Central Services 25.92
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 4063373940 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 3.50
CINTAS CORPORATION 10/12/2020 114945 4063373940 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 50.81
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114945:156.46
CITY HOMES LLC 10/12/2020 114946 10012020-5 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000088 3369 CRYSTA 1,000.00
CITY HOMES LLC 10/12/2020 114946 10012020-5 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000088 3369 CRYSTA 30.00-
Total 114946:970.00
City of Orono Utilities 10/12/2020 114947 093020 CH P 101-41900-382 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020 UB - CH Central Services 1,575.38
City of Orono Utilities 10/12/2020 114947 093020 CH P 101-42110-382 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020 UB - PD Police Department 1,575.37
City of Orono Utilities 10/12/2020 114947 093020 PO 101-41900-382 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020 UB - PO Central Services 156.28
City of Orono Utilities 10/12/2020 114947 093020 PW 101-41900-382 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020 UB - PW Central Services 706.74
City of Orono Utilities 10/12/2020 114947 093020 WP 101-41900-382 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020 UB Central Services 267.16
Total 114947:4,280.93
CITY OF WAYZATA 10/12/2020 114948 100220 601-49400-387 SEPTEMBER 2020 WATER Water 3,477.85
CITY OF WAYZATA 10/12/2020 114948 100220 602-49450-387 SEPTEMBER 2020 SEWER Sewer 5,763.90
Total 114948:9,241.75
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 10/12/2020 114949 200930 101-43000-224 ROAD PATCHING Public Works Department 2,029.02
Total 114949:2,029.02
DELTA DENTAL 10/12/2020 114950 RIS0003077 101-21709 4842130001 OCTOBER 2020 DENTAL 3,103.00
Total 114950:3,103.00
DISPLAY SALES 10/12/2020 114951 INV-025287 101-41900-223 FLAG POLE BRACKETS - CH Central Services 134.00
Total 114951:134.00
EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 10/12/2020 114952 50096 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 670.50
Total 114952:670.50
EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPART 10/12/2020 114953 1 101-42110-437 SWAT TRAINING MCCOY Police Department 93.44
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114953:93.44
Emergency Medical Products Inc 10/12/2020 114954 2203825 101-42110-221 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 341.07
Emergency Medical Products Inc 10/12/2020 114954 2204065 101-42110-221 SQUAD MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 67.60
Total 114954:408.67
ES&S Election Systems & Softwar 10/12/2020 114955 1158250 101-41410-221 2020 GENERAL ELECTION TRANSFER CASES Elections 142.94
Total 114955:142.94
FRED VARGAS 10/12/2020 114956 080120 101-42110-319 COVID TEST Police Department 47.44
Total 114956:47.44
GOPHER ACE 10/12/2020 114957 2906/1 101-43000-489 HARDWARE FOR SIGNS Public Works Department 1.18
GOPHER ACE 10/12/2020 114957 3321/1 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES ARMORY Police Department 27.12
GOPHER ACE 10/12/2020 114957 3401/1 701-49800-221 BRINE MAKER BRUSH 3.59
GOPHER ACE 10/12/2020 114957 3403/1 101-41900-223 LIGHT BULBS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS Central Services 15.98
Total 114957:47.87
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 10/12/2020 114958 0080652 601-49400-489 LOCATES Water 291.60
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 10/12/2020 114958 0080652 602-49450-489 LOCATES Sewer 291.60
Total 114958:583.20
GRUNDITZ, JOHN & LAVONNE 10/12/2020 114959 092220 101-19999 REFUND - RAS20-000043 OVERCHARGE 10.00
Total 114959:10.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 10/12/2020 114960 1000154791 710-49970-401 NETWORK SUPPORT 10-2020 58.00
Total 114960:58.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 10/12/2020 114961 1000154424 101-41600-309 08/20 JAIL CHARGES Law/Legal Services 374.00
Total 114961:374.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
HOUSTON, WILLIAM 10/12/2020 114962 100620 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D19-000006 1235 LYMAN AVE 1,000.00
Total 114962:1,000.00
JABS, JOSHUA & NICOLE 10/12/2020 114963 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000004 3369 CRYSTAL 700.00
JABS, JOSHUA & NICOLE 10/12/2020 114963 100120 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000004 3369 CRYSTAL 21.00-
JABS, JOSHUA & NICOLE 10/12/2020 114963 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS19-000088 3369 CRYSTA 8,300.00
Total 114963:8,979.00
JAMI WITTKE 10/12/2020 114964 090520 101-42110-226 UNIFORM REIMBURSEMENT Police Department 43.63
Total 114964:43.63
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 10/12/2020 114965 3088565 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GC Golf Course 333.90
Total 114965:333.90
KLINGSPOR 10/12/2020 114966 3971801 602-49450-240 CUTOFF SAWBLADES Sewer 431.85
Total 114966:431.85
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49307 101-42110-310 POLICE RECORDS 10/20 Police Department 7,305.00
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49307 710-49970-329 INTERNET 10/20 509.00
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49307 710-49970-311 HOSTED SERVERS 10/20 1,093.00
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49307 710-49970-329 BACKUPS 10/20 804.00
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49307 710-49970-311 EMAIL COMPLIENCE ARCHIVE 501.00
LOGIS 10/12/2020 114967 49369 710-49970-401 FUEL SYSTEM TROUBLESHOOTING 31.25
Total 114967:10,243.25
MALONE, RYAN 10/12/2020 114968 100120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-01341 1020 MOONEY L 10,000.00
Total 114968:10,000.00
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/12/2020 114969 21971223 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 275.99
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/12/2020 114969 21971224 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 70.36
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/12/2020 114969 21971228 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,123.97
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114969:2,470.32
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 10/12/2020 114970 0001114990 602-49450-383 WASTEWATER CHARGES 11/2020 Sewer 51,616.28
Total 114970:51,616.28
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 10/12/2020 114971 2564 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES AUGUST 2020 Building & Zoning 7,287.50
Total 114971:7,287.50
MIDWEST AQUA CARE 10/12/2020 114972 092820 101-45210-404 2020 GOLF POND MAINTENANCE Golf Course 910.00
Total 114972:910.00
MIDWEST TURF AND LANDSCA 10/12/2020 114973 9156 101-43280-319 MOWING 2180 KENWOOD Special Services 95.00
Total 114973:95.00
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/12/2020 114974 00058883 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 6.90
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/12/2020 114974 00065923 701-49800-222 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN 29.70
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/12/2020 114974 00065924 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 49.50
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/12/2020 114974 00065925 101-42110-221 MEDICAL OXYGEN Police Department 6.90
Total 114974:93.00
Minnesota Topsoil 10/12/2020 114975 2020003 101-45200-223 BLACK DIRT Parks 730.50
Minnesota Topsoil 10/12/2020 114975 2020003 101-43000-224 BLACK DIRT Public Works Department 730.50
Total 114975:1,461.00
MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 10/12/2020 114976 26099 101-45200-404 SAGA HILL SPOT SPRAY Parks 700.00
Total 114976:700.00
Morrie's Auto Body & Glass 10/12/2020 114977 BSCB803670 101-42110-550 SQUAD #244 SET UP/TEARDOWN Police Department 201.00
Total 114977:201.00
MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/12/2020 114978 170968 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 42.26
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114978:42.26
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 10/12/2020 114979 1279508-00 101-45210-223 GOLF NURSERY IRRIGATION Golf Course 328.07
Total 114979:328.07
MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 10/12/2020 114980 0562095CP 101-43000-226 PPE REPLACEMENT APPAREL Public Works Department 94.00
Total 114980:94.00
NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/12/2020 114981 327278 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 10.37
NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/12/2020 114981 327341 601-49400-489 SHIPPING Water 11.84
NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/12/2020 114981 A85521 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS CREDIT Police Department 7.50-
Total 114981:14.71
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.10/12/2020 114982 6732001020 101-21710 PERA LIFE 10/2020 384.00
Total 114982:384.00
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302948313 710-49970-221 FLASH DRIVE - A CARLSON 36.05
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302954361 710-49970-221 MONITOR ADAPTORS - CH & PD 41.48
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302955376 710-49970-221 PW BREAK ROOM PC 399.99
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302956434 710-49970-221 MONITORS - J WERDER 333.98
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302956776 710-49970-575 LAPTOP - SILTALA 602.98
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302956931 710-49970-221 DISPLAY ADAPTORS - CH & PD 39.52
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302957045 710-49970-221 PORT REPLICATORS/DOCKING 157.98
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302957086 710-49970-221 MONITOR ADAPTORS - CH & PD 35.52
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302959633 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - HEADSET 48.21
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302960191 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - HEADPHONE/MICROPHONE 9.99
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302960795 710-49970-221 MONITOR ADAPTORS - CH & PD 19.98
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302961400 710-49970-221 MONITOR CONVERTER CABLES - CH & PD 85.97
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302961572 710-49970-221 MONITOR ADAPTORS - CH & PD 46.46
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302961779 710-49970-221 MONITOR ADAPTORS - CH & PD 56.46
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302962352 710-49970-221 LAPTOP BATTERY - J. BARNHART 69.99
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302963632 710-49970-221 MONITORS - SILTALA 307.98
Newegg Business Inc 10/12/2020 114983 1302965549 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - WEB CAMS - FINANCE 55.98
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114983:2,348.52
NORLINGS 10/12/2020 114984 37403 101-41900-404 CITY HALL & PD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Central Services 836.00
Total 114984:836.00
NORTON HOMES 10/12/2020 114985 100520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000157 775 LAKEVIE 1,000.00
NORTON HOMES 10/12/2020 114985 100520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000157 775 LAKEVIE 30.00-
Total 114985:970.00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 10/12/2020 114986 142164 710-49970-401 PHONE SUPPORT - UNG 90.00
Total 114986:90.00
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1251510850 101-41900-221 FAN Central Services 40.39
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1251510850 101-41900-201 TABS Central Services 24.36
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1251531450 101-41900-201 MAGNETIC BOARD Central Services 49.59
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1265531610 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 156.97
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1265580840 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 13.15
OFFICE DEPOT 10/12/2020 114987 1271893830 101-45210-201 INK CARTRIDGES Golf Course 60.08
Total 114987:344.54
Orono Woods Apartments LLC 10/12/2020 114988 100820 235-45690-489 TIF PAYMENT 2ND HALF 2019 34,231.05
Orono Woods Apartments LLC 10/12/2020 114988 100820 235-45690-489 TIF PAYMENT 1ST HALF 2020 37,074.95
Total 114988:71,306.00
PROLAWNS 10/12/2020 114989 25069 101-45200-404 BEDERWOOD FERTILIZER Parks 299.50
Total 114989:299.50
QUADIENT INC 10/12/2020 114990 N8503012 101-41900-401 POSTAGE MACHINE 10/28/20 - 1/27/21 Central Services 878.94
Total 114990:878.94
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/12/2020 114991 SEPTEMBE 101-41900-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 9/2020 Central Services 526.60
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/12/2020 114991 SEPTEMBE 101-45200-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 9/2020 Parks 559.76
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/12/2020 114991 SEPTEMBE 101-45210-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 9/2020 Golf Course 118.42
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/12/2020 114991 SEPTEMBE 101-45220-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 9/2020 Brush Site 36.39
Total 114991:1,241.17
SHEARER, FRED 10/12/2020 114992 100520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000124 1405 PARK DR 8,000.00
SHEARER, FRED 10/12/2020 114992 100520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000124 1405 PARK DR 30.00-
SHEARER, FRED 10/12/2020 114992 100520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D19-000014 1405 PARK DR 1,000.00
SHEARER, FRED 10/12/2020 114992 100520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND D19-000014 1405 PARK DR 30.00-
SHEARER, FRED 10/12/2020 114992 100520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND Z20-000013 1405 PARK DR 1,000.00
Total 114992:9,940.00
SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 10/12/2020 114993 103577231-0 101-45210-223 GOLF NURSERY IRRIGATION Golf Course 158.75
SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 10/12/2020 114993 103630808-0 101-45210-223 GOLF NURSERY IRRIGATION Golf Course 379.17
SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 10/12/2020 114993 103652790-0 101-45210-223 GOLF NURSERY IRRIGATION Golf Course 59.54
Total 114993:597.46
SONICLEAR 10/12/2020 114994 71245 101-41900-416 ANNUAL SUPPORT - RECORDING SOFTWARE Central Services 473.00
Total 114994:473.00
STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 10/12/2020 114995 00011269 601-49400-404 DOOR LOCK REPAIR - NORTH WATERPLANT Water 99.00
Total 114995:99.00
T W TUPY INC 10/12/2020 114996 100320 101-43000-224 LIMESTONE Public Works Department 680.19
T W TUPY INC 10/12/2020 114996 100320 101-45200-223 SAND Parks 1,225.47
Total 114996:1,905.66
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 10/12/2020 114997 M25922 101-45200-319 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Parks 475.75
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 10/12/2020 114997 M25922 101-41110-439 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Mayor & Council 476.50
Total 114997:952.25
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 10/12/2020 114998 530564 701-49800-222 GARAGE DOOR OPENERS 158.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114998:158.00
TWIN CITY STRIPING 10/12/2020 114999 20101 101-43000-408 STRIPING WILLOW, OCB N Public Works Department 1,430.15
Total 114999:1,430.15
US Bank Equipment Finance 10/12/2020 115000 424846046 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76
Total 115000:596.76
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-42110-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Police Department 1,759.95
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-41900-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Central Services 327.16
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-42400-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Building & Zoning 70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-43000-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Public Works Department 35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-45200-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Parks 35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-45210-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Golf Course 142.99
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-45220-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Brush Site 105.03
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 601-49400-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Water 202.10
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 602-49450-321 INTERNET 9/7/20-10/6/20 Sewer 202.10
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 710-49970-221 FINANCE IPAD 597.47
VERIZON WIRELESS 10/12/2020 115001 642010705-0 101-45210-221 GC MAINTENANCE SHED IPAD Golf Course 597.48
Total 115001:4,074.32
VESSCO INC 10/12/2020 115002 81200 601-49400-405 INJECTOR REPAIR Water 234.94
Total 115002:234.94
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 10/12/2020 115003 0073614-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 10/2020 15,831.75
Total 115003:15,831.75
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 701532227 101-45200-381 BEDERWOOD PARK 8/19/20-9/20/20 Parks 33.46
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-41900-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Central Services 1,696.48
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Police Department 1,121.03
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Police Department 35.52
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Public Works Department 4.52-
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-43000-386 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Public Works Department 2,114.02
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Parks 22.64
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14
Check Issue Dates: 9/29/2020 - 10/12/2020 Oct 08, 2020 12:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 601-49400-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Water 7,697.18
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 602-49450-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Sewer 2,541.16
XCEL ENERGY 10/12/2020 115004 702734655 101-45210-381 ELECTRIC 8/22/20-9/22/20 Golf Course 1,162.31
Total 115004:16,419.28
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.10/12/2020 115005 719536 101-45210-415 GOLF CART LEASE Golf Course 1,647.00
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.10/12/2020 115005 719618 101-45210-415 GOLF UTILITY CART RENTAL Golf Course 295.00
Total 115005:1,942.00
Grand Totals: 439,408.51
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. To reduce the statutory debt levy requirement for the Series 2014A GO Bonds.
2. Background. Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the
annual amount needed for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds. The 105%
requirement can be met through taxes, special assessments, transfers from other funds, or cash on
hand.
A portion of the 2014A bond proceeds were used for the construction of the Police
Garage/Addition. Part of the funding for debt service payments of the bonds is an annual
transfer of a portion of the Mound Police Service contract revenue to the debt service fund. To
date, a total of $1,170,000 has been transferred. This transfer allows the City to levy an annual
amount that is less than the statutory requirement.
The preliminary levy approved on September 28, 2020 was based on the reduced amount. The
County requires a copy of a resolution reducing the levy requirement. Approval of the resolution
does not decrease the actual levy amount. It is needed to demonstrate that the City is meeting the
105% requirement.
3. Staff Recommendation. Approval of the attached resolution reducing the debt levy
requirements for the Series 2014A GO bonds.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt a resolution to reduce the levy requirements for the Series 2014A General
Obligation Bonds.
Exhibits
A. Resolution to Reduce the Levy Requirements for the Series 2014A General Obligation
Bonds.
B. Debt Levy Requirements
Item No.: 4 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2014A
Presenter: Ron Olson, Finance Director Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
A RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERIES
2014A GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
WHEREAS, the City has issued Series 2014A General Obligation Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the
annual amount need for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City has been annually transferring additional amounts from the
General Fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the 2014A General Obligation Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the annual transfer, tax levy, and cash on hand combine to exceed the 105%
requirement; and
WHEREAS, the Statute allows a municipality to levy less than 105% of the debt service
when other irrevocably pledged sources are available to meet the requirement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the required levy for the 2014A
General Obligation Bonds be reduced to $166,700 for the collectable 2021 tax levy.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held
October 12, 2020.
ATTEST:
________________________________ _______________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Levy Schedule for Aug. 12, 20202021
City of Orono
Date
Original
Amount Issued for 2021
Levy Scheduled
3802 12/30/2010 $4,315,000.00 $131,519.07General Obligation (Series 2010A)
3803B 6 /19/2014 $3,315,000.00 $293,993.45General Obligation (Series 2014A)
3804 11/17/2016 $2,680,000.00 $551,775.00General Obligation (Series 2016A)
$977,287.52City of Orono Total:
0.00
166,700
412,780
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. To reduce the statutory debt levy requirement for the Series 2016A GO Bonds.
2. Background. Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the annual
amount needed for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds. The 105% requirement can be
met through taxes, special assessments, transfers from other funds, or cash on hand.
The 2016A General Obligation Bonds we used to refund the Series 2008A Street Reconstruction Bonds.
A portion of the original 2008A bond proceeds were used to replace water and sewer mains as part of the
Casco Point Road Project. To pay for the Utility upgrades, the water and sewer funds have been
transferring an annual amount to the debt service fund. This transfer allows the City to levy an annual
amount that is less than the statutory requirement.
The preliminary levy approved on September 28, 2020 was based on the reduced amount. The County
requires a copy of a resolution reducing the levy requirement. Approval of the resolution does not
decrease the actual levy amount. It is needed to demonstrate that the City is meeting the 105%
requirement.
3. Staff Recommendation. Approval of the attached resolution reducing the debt levy requirements for
the Series 2016A GO bonds.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt a Resolution to reduce the levy requirements for the Series 2016A General Obligation
Bonds.
Exhibits
A. Resolution to Reduce the Levy Requirements for the Series 2016A General Obligation Bonds.
B. Debt Levy Requirements
Item No.: 5 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2016A
Presenter: Ron Olson, Finance Director Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
A RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERIES
2016A GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
WHEREAS, the City has issued Series 2016A General Obligation Street Reconstruction
refunding Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the
annual amount need for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City has been annually transferring additional amounts from the Water
and Sewer Utility Funds to pay a portion of the debt service on the 2016A General Obligation
Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the annual transfer, tax levy, and cash on hand combine to exceed the 105%
requirement; and
WHEREAS, the Statute allows a municipality to levy less than 105% of the debt service
when other irrevocably pledged sources are available to meet the requirement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the required levy for the 2016A
General Obligation Bonds be reduced to $412,780 for the collectable 2021 tax levy.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held
October 12, 2020.
ATTEST:
________________________________ _______________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Levy Schedule for Aug. 12, 20202021
City of Orono
Date
Original
Amount Issued for 2021
Levy Scheduled
3802 12/30/2010 $4,315,000.00 $131,519.07General Obligation (Series 2010A)
3803B 6 /19/2014 $3,315,000.00 $293,993.45General Obligation (Series 2014A)
3804 11/17/2016 $2,680,000.00 $551,775.00General Obligation (Series 2016A)
$977,287.52City of Orono Total:
0.00
166,700
412,780
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Rental Licenses for the license period
of October 14, 2020 to December 31, 2022.
2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental licenses as listed in Exhibit A
for the license period of October 14, 2020 to December 31, 2022. The Rental License Applicants
in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the rental licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of October 14, 2020 to
December 31, 2022.
Exhibits
A. Listing of Rental License
Item No.: 6 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Exhibit A
City Council
2020 Rental License
RL20-000015 2100 Webber Hills Road 100
RL20-000019 1840 Lakeview Terrace 100
License# Licensee Total License Fees
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the 2021 Contract Amendment for
Residential Recycling Grant.
2. Background. Hennepin County receives annual funding from the state’s Select Committee on
Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) fund and distributes 100% of this money to cities in
accordance with the county’s funding policy. Grants are awarded based on the number of
households with curbside recycling service and the number of households signed up for and
receiving curbside organics recycling. The City’s recycling program must meet several basic
requirements to receive funding, including standard materials accepted, partnership on education
and outreach, reporting, and program performance.
The county’s current residential recycling grant agreement with Orono expires at the end of this
year. The attached amendment extends the contract for one year, through the end of 2021, with
the allocation of funds in 2021 using the same formula as 2020.
3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Hennepin County 2021 Amendment
for Residential Recycling Grant.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the Hennepin County 2021 Amendment for Residential Recycling Grant.
Exhibits
A. Resolution Authorizing Residential Recycling Grant Amendment
B. City of Orono Residential Grant Agreement - A166415
C. City of Orono Residential Grant Agreement - A166415 Amendment
D. Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy
Item No.: 7 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Hennepin County 2021 Contract Amendment for Residential
Recycling Grant – Resolution
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and
maintain a recycling program; and
WHEREAS, the County Board approved the Hennepin County Residential
Recycling Funding Policy for the period 2017 to 2021 and authorized grant funding for
municipal recycling programs consistent with said policy; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive grant funds, the City must sign the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono wishes to receive these grant funds each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Orono accepts the agreement as proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes submittal of the
grant application on annual basis through 2021 as required in the amended agreement, and
further authorizes the City Administrator to execute such agreement with the County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held
October 14, 2020.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
__________________________ _______________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT A166415
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 (“COUNTY”), on behalf of the
Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55415-1600 (“DEPARTMENT”) and the CITY OF ORONO, P.O. Box 66, Crystal
Bay, Minnesota 55323 (“CITY”).
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY entered into a four-year Residential Recycling
Grant Agreement, Contract No. A166415 (“Agreement”), for a residential recycling grant
commencing on January 1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the County Board, by Resolution No. 20-0197 adopted on June 2, 2020,
amended the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy to extend the contract
period to December 31, 2021, allocate 2021 funds using the same methodology as 2020, allow
organics recycling funds to be used for organics drop-off sites, and authorized grant funding for
municipal recycling programs consistent with said policy; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term and
incorporate other changes;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that Agreement A166415 is amended as follows:
1. Section 1, TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read as
follows:
This Agreement shall commence upon execution and terminate on
December 31, 2021, unless cancelled or terminated earlier in
accordance with the provisions herein.
2. Section 2, SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, shall be amended to read as follows:
The CITY shall operate its recycling program in accordance with the requirements
described in the County’s amended Residential Recycling Funding Policy (“Policy”),
attached as Attachment A and incorporated by this reference, and fulfill the
responsibilities of the Policy.
3. Section 3, ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, shall be amended to read as follows:
The COUNTY will distribute SCORE funds as described in the Policy. The CITY
shall follow the requirements for use of funds described in the Policy.
Except as amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
Hennepin County Residential
Recycling Funding Policy
January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2021
Board Adopted: June 2, 2020
1
I. Policy Description
A. Background
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has determined that curbside collection of
recyclables and organics from Hennepin County residents is an effective strategy to reduce
reliance on landfills, prevent pollution, conserve natural resources and energy, improve public
health, support the economy, and reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, the county adopted the
goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and developed a Residential Recycling
Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030.
The county will distribute all Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds
received from the state to cities for curbside collection of residential recyclables and organics. If
cities form a joint powers organization responsible for managing a comprehensive recycling and
waste education system for the residents of those cities, the county will distribute recycling and
organics grants to that organization. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of the policy.
B. Term of the Policy
Hennepin County is committed to implement this policy and continue distributing all SCORE
funds received from the state for the purpose of funding curbside residential recycling and
organics programs from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. The county may revise this
policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals
established for metropolitan counties. In the event that SCORE funds are eliminated from the
state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with municipalities at that time and
develop a subsequent recommendation to the board on continuation of this policy and future
funding of curbside recycling and organics programs.
C. Grant Agreements
Each municipality seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy
must enter into a recycling grant agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the
expiration of this policy, December 31, 2020. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a
resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement.
D. Fund Distribution
The county will distribute to Hennepin County municipalities 100% of SCORE funds that the
county receives from the state. SCORE funds will be dedicated to two different purposes: 1)
2
curbside recycling and 2) curbside organics recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue
received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management (SWM) tax on garbage
services. SCORE funds are subject to change based on the SWM tax revenue received by the
state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current
calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the state’s corresponding
fiscal year.
II. Recycling
A. Allocation of Funds
The following formula will be utilized to determine a city’s recycling SCORE grant each year.
Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside recycling:
2017 80%
2018 70%
2019 60%
2020 50%
2021 50%
City recycling grant calculation:
Number of households with curbside recycling in city -------------------------------
Total number of households with curbside recycling in county
x
Total SCORE Funds available
for recycling
=
Recycling grant
amount available
to the city
Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential
buildings or other residential buildings where each housing unit sets out its own recycling
container for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by
counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The city will
report the number in its application for funding.
B. Application for Funding
Each municipality must complete an annual grant application by February 15 to receive funding
for that year. The application consists of a web-based report and a planning document provided
3
by the county. The web-based report asks for contract, program, tonnage, and financial
information. The participation rate for the curbside recycling program must also be included in
the web-based report. The municipality must calculate its participation rate during the month of
October. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon
request. The planning document asks for a description of activities the city will implement to
increase recycling and make progress toward county objectives.
C. Use of Funds
The following requirements apply to the use of recycling funds:
1. All grant funds accepted from the county must be used for waste reduction and recycling
capital and operating expenses in the year granted. The county will not reimburse any
funds in excess of actual expenses.
2. A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through
property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its recycling program
costs that are funded by county grant funds.
3. Municipalities must establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a project
number, activity number, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and expenditures
from other municipal activities, including solid waste and yard waste activities.
4. Recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit.
5. Municipalities that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds
provided that at least 90% of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city
meets all minimum program requirements. The additional 10% may be used for waste
reduction and recycling expenses. The county may waive this requirement if the city
negotiates a recycling improvement plan with the county.
D. City Requirements
1. Materials Accepted
At a minimum, the following materials must be collected curbside:
• Metal food and beverage cans;
• Glass food and beverage containers;
• Cardboard boxes;
• Newspaper and inserts;
4
• Mail, office and school papers;
• Cereal, cracker, pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, and electronics boxes;
• Boxes from toothpaste, medications and other toiletries;
• Magazines and catalogs;
• Aseptic and gable-topped containers; and
• Plastic bottles and containers, #1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), #4 – Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and #5 –
Polypropylene (PP) plastic bottles, except those that previously contained hazardous
materials or motor oil.
The county may add materials to this list and require municipalities to begin collection within
one year of receiving notification from the county. Municipalities will notify the county if
materials not found on this list will be collected.
2. Education and Outreach
The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in
educating residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership
and increase these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with
county and regional efforts. Municipalities must adhere to the following requirements:
a. Use county terminology when describing recycling guidelines, including the
description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and
promotional materials;
b. Use images provided by the county or the Solid Waste Management Coordinating
Board (SWMCB) if using images of recyclables;
c. Provide recycling information on the city’s website, including materials accepted and
not accepted, a recycling calendar, and links to county resources;
d. Mail a recycling guide to residents each year using a template developed jointly with
the county. The county will design and print the guide. If a municipality does not use
the template produced by the county, the municipality may develop its own guide at
the municipality’s expense, but it must be approved by the county. If the municipality
relies on the hauler to provide the recycling guide, this guide requires approval by
the county.
e. Complete two educational activities from a menu of options developed by the
county.
5
Any print material that communicates residential recycling guidelines that were not provided
by the county template will require county approval. This does not apply to waste reduction
and reuse, articles on recycling that do not include guidelines, or social media posts. The
county will respond within five business days to any communication piece submitted.
3. Recycling Performance
On an annual basis, municipal recycling programs must demonstrate that a reasonable effort
has been made to maintain and increase the pounds of recyclables per household collected
from their residential recycling programs.
If a municipality does not demonstrate measurable progress, a recycling improvement plan
must be submitted by the municipality within 90 days of being notified by the county. The
recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that
will be undertaken by the municipality to improve its recycling program to yield the results
necessary to achieve county objectives.
In cooperation with the county, the municipality may be required to participate in waste and
recycling sorts to identify recovery levels of various recyclables in its community. Based on
the results of the study, the county and municipality will collaborate to increase the recovery
of select recyclable materials being discarded in significant quantities.
E. Grant Payments
The county will make two equal payments to the municipality. One payment will be made after
the county receives the application, which consists of the web-based report and the planning
document. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and
outreach requirements, and recycling performance have been confirmed and approved. If the
municipality meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same
calendar year. Funding will be withheld until the municipality meets the requirements of this
policy.
III. Organics Recycling
A. Allocation of Funds
The following formula will be utilized to determine a city’s organics recycling SCORE grant each
year:
6
Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside organics recycling:
2017 20%
2018 30%
2019 40%
2020 50%
2021 50%
City organics recycling grant calculation:
Number of households with curbside organics in city ---------------------------------
Total number of households with curbside organics in county
x
Total SCORE
funds available for
organics
=
Organics grant
amount available
to the city
If the formula above results in cities receiving grants where the dollar amount per participating
household is greater than $25 per year, then a cap will apply. The funding cap per participating
household is $25 per year. The most the county will grant a city is $25 per participating
household per year. If funds are left over because of the cap, those funds will carry over into the
following year’s SCORE funds.
Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential
buildings or other residential buildings where the household is signed up for organics service
and the household sets out its own container with organics for curbside collection. The number
of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on
September 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in the application for funding.
B. Application for Funds
Each municipality must complete an annual application provided by the county by September 1
to receive funding. As a part of the application, a city must submit the number of households
signed up for and receiving curbside organics service.
C. Use of Funds
The grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following:
• Discount to new customers
• Discount to existing customers
7
• Referral incentives
• City contract costs
• Education and outreach
• Compostable bags
• Kitchen containers
• Carts
• Organics drop-off sites
Program administration is not an eligible expense. Yard waste expenses are not eligible. If
organics are co-collected with other waste, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If
a city passes funds through to a hauler, 100% of those funds must be credited to residents’ bills.
In addition, the following requirements apply:
• All grant funds must be used during the term of the agreement. Funds not spent must be
returned to the county.
• Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota State Statute 115A.557.
• A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through
property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its organics program
costs that are funded by county grant funds.
• Municipalities must account for organics expenditures separately upon request by the
county. Expenditures are subject to audit.
D. Education and Outreach Requirements
The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating
residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership and increase
these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with county and regional
efforts. The following requirements apply:
1. Use county terminology when describing organics recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and promotional materials;
2. Use images provided by the county or the SWMCB if using images of organic materials;
3. Provide organics recycling information on the city’s website, including material accepted
and not accepted, service options, and links to county resources;
4. Work with the county to develop promotional resources to increase participation.
8
E. Reporting
A report on the city’s organics program must be submitted electronically to the county by
February 15 following each year. The report must include, but is not limited to, the following:
Basic Program Information
• Hauler(s)
• Collection method
• Where organics were delivered to and processed
• Is service opt-in or opt-out
• Cost of service to residents; contract cost for city
• How the service was billed
• Items included in service, such as curbside collection, cart, compostable bags, etc.
Results
• Tons
• Number of households signed up
• Average pounds per household per year
• Participation (set-out rate on pickup day)
• Program costs
• How funds were used
F. Grant Payment
The county will make one organics grant payment to a municipality each year. The payment will
be made after the county receives the application and confirms that the municipality meets the
requirements of this policy.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action is to gain council authorization to execute a remodel for
the City Hall reception area to conform to COVID 19 guidance.
2. Background. The front desk area of City Hall is not laid out in a manner that supports customer
service, facilitates covid19 restrictions nor provides basic security for the administrative staff.
Temporary measures were put into place at the beginning of the pandemic including plastic sneeze guards
and using conference room space as temporary offices. The pandemic and election season operation
pointed out some issues with the layout that require a permanent solution for staff safety, public safety
and efficient work flow. The Cares Act provides a funding mechanism to make the needed changes.
City Staff engaged Wold Architects and Engineering to analyze the front area for possible improvements.
Several options were assessed the project scope listed in paragraph 3 selected as providing the most cost
effective solution.
3. Project Scope. The project scope includes:
a. Replacement for main reception desk including permanent glass sneeze guards.
b. Construction of desk space in the current microfiche area for the PW admin / Utility Billing Clerk
in order to provide appropriately spaced social distance work space.
c. Reconstruction of Elections counter to better facilitate early election process and incorporation of
sneeze guards and social distance.
4. Cost. Seven proposals/quotes were received (see quote tabulation at Exhibit A). The low quote was
from Construction Results Corporation for $58,440.00.
Who Work Cost Status
Design and
Construction Mgmt
Wold Architects and
Engineers
$3,375 Approved
Construction Results
Corporation
Front area Remodel $58,440 Pending acceptance
Total $61,815
5. Funding. Funding for the project would come from the Cares Act.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the project with Construction Results
Corporation for $58,440.00.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion accept the proposal from Construction Results Corporation to remodel the City All reception area
for $58,440.00.
Exhibits
A. Quote Summary
Item No.: 8 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: City Hall Reception Area COVID19 Remodel
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E
City Engineer/ Dir of Public Works
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Exhibit A.
Summary of Quotes
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donations for Big Island Park
from the Goodman Foundation via the Big Island Legacy
2. Background. The Big Island Legacy (BIL), a 501C3, initiated a funding drive to help support the
ongoing Big Island Project. The group committed $68,000 at the time of the project award. At the time
for award the group provided $58,000. This most recent check for $10,000 provides the remaining
commitment.
3. Donations Received: Goodman Foundation via the Big Island Legacy, $10,0000 for the Big Island
ADA Trails Project
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend acceptance of the donation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion for accept the donations from the Big Island legacy.
Item No.: 9 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Approval to Accept Donations for Big Island Park
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. This application is regarding a hardcover variance to allow a 10’ x 10’ driveway
turnaround.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on August 19th and considered
to be complete on August 25th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on October 25, 2020.
3. Background/ Summary. The owners built a new home on the property which was completed in
2019; the property was designed to conform to the 25% hardcover limitation. After living in the
home through one winter the owners have realized there are a number of challenges in their
driveway design relating to its length and narrowness; its orientation and proximity to the home;
and the steep slope leading up to Casco Point Road. They are requesting a hardcover variance to
permit an additional 100 square feet of driveway hardcover to add a 10’ x 10’ back up apron so
they and their guests may drive out of the property facing frontward.
Due to a calculation error by the surveyor, the property is currently 43 square feet over the 25%
limitation. The owners are requesting approval for hardcover to permit the backup apron, also to
formally acknowledge the additional 43 square feet of existing hardcover.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 21st the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion
to approve the requested variance.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. Public Comment
E. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits 09/21/2020
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
D. Applicant Photos
E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F. Neighbor Comments
Item No.: 10 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000058 – Mark & Mary Enger, 2697 Casco Point Rd,
Variance – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-1288; 78-1680; and 78-1700
FILE NO. LA20 -000058
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020, Mark Enger and Mary Enger (“Applicants”), applied
for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 2697 Casco Point Road and legally
described as:
Lot 4, Auditors Subdivision 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the
“Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1288 and 78-1700 to allow 25.7%
hardcover where 25% is the maximum allowed in conjunction with the installation of a 10’x10’
driveway backup apron and 43 square feet of unaccounted for hardcover; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2020, after published and mailed notice in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the variance; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application and
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA20-000058. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 20,509 square feet, 0.47 acres in area and has a defined lot width
of 60 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following:
a. Hardcover Variance
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose
of the Ordinance. The substandard lot has difficulties in its slope, small size and depth,
and unique configuration with the driveway easement and Casco Point Road.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The hardcover variance is requested to alleviate a difficulty on the
Property relating to the slope, narrowness of the lot, and depth of the lot, and the Owners’
safety concern relating to the challenging driveway configuration which is not inconsistent
with the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The variance request to allow expansion of the driveway hardcover may be
reasonable and may be supported by the practical difficulties found in the restricted
maneuverability which results from the narrow width and orientation on the
Property in addition to the steep access to the elevated, highly trafficked roadway
is not unreasonable.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
A number of the difficult characteristics of the Property were not created by the
owners: depth and narrowness of the lot; shared driveway access to the busy
roadway; and topography.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The minimal hardcover variance is requested to provide better maneuverability on the
driveway and it will not alter the essential character.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance analysis.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as a driveway serving a residence is an allowed
use in the LR-1C District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The sloped topography, lot width and depth,
and shared driveway situation are particular to this property.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The street adjacent to this lot is at a substantially higher elevation than the
home. The slope conditions and orientation of the access to the busy roadway do not
generally apply to the other properties in the LR-1C district.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” The owners indicate that granting the hardcover
variance is necessary for safe egress from the Property which preserves their property
right.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting a hardcover
variance to allow for a safer driveway in this situation is not contrary to the intent of the
zoning chapter.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The practical difficulties inherent to the
lot’s topography, narrowness and depth, and limited shared driveway access to the high
traffic roadway support the variance. The granting of the variance would alleviate safety
concerns for the owners, rather than convenience. This criterion is met.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 and 78-1700 to allow 25.7% hardcover
where 25% is the maximum allowed, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the annotated as-built survey dated 06/19/2019
submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a zoning permit for the new driveway
paving and commencing construction of said project. The paving must be completed
within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date
(October 12, 2021).
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of October, 2020.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
10
'
x
1
0
'
b
a
c
k
u
p
p
a
d
D e
c
k
B
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
S 2
1
°
0
8
'
3
4
"
W
4
9
.
8
4
N
6
9
°
2
6
'
5
1
"
W
3
1
5
.
6
4
N
6
9
°
2
6
'
5
1
"
W
3
2
3
.
1
7
S 27°43'48" W 60.58D o c kD e c k
6.4
66.0Lake Minnetonka
60.
0
930932934936938940
9
4
29409
4
0
942
9
4
2
9
4
4
946
948
950
9
5
2
954
956
9
3
8
940
942
944
946
948
950
952
954
956
934936938940
9
4
0
9
4
2
942
9
4
2
9
4
2
66'+-65.0
60.
0
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
W
i
r
e
s
11.
6
24.
0
24.
9
OHW 929.4 Contour24'+-23'+-
2
7
9
.
3
6
CA
S
C
O
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
B
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
9.1
9.1
5
0
'
6
"
9'0"
3
3
'
6
"
34'6
"
4
1
'
0
"
23'1
0
"
1
1
'
0
"
3'4"
3
2
'
0
"
23'0
"
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
B
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
9
4
2
con
c
940
9
4
0
942
A
C
24"oak936.1twin16"22"maple937.8 FlagPole
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
l
e
R
i
s
e
r
E
l
e
c
M
e
t
e
r
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
R
i
s
e
r
L=10
.
2
8
R=9
2
.
0
9
=06°
2
3
'
4
7
"
CH=
1
0
.
2
8
12"cedar936.3
D
r
a
i
n
t
i
l
e
/
S
u
m
p
i
n
v
9
3
4
.
8
7
c
b
r
i
m
9
3
7
.
3
2
shoreline929.1 shoreline929.1
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
N
o
.
2
7
1
5
N
o
.
2
6
9
1
G
a
r
a
g
e
G
a
r
a
g
e
Found Ironelt
T
o
p
N
u
t
=
9
5
8
.
8
3
P o r
c
h
1
'
1
0
"
f
i
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
9
4
1
.
2
9
4
1
.
3
9
4
1
.
1
9
4
1
.
4
9
4
0
.
4
9
3
8
.
3
9
3
8
.
7
9
3
8
.
9
7%
±
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
E
g
r
e
s
s
W
e
l
l
P o
r
c
h
f
f
e
9
4
5
.
9
t
o
f
9
4
4
.
3
U
n
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
9
4
2
.
8
9
4
2
.
2
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
3
.
1
9
4
2
.
9
S
t
e
p
s
9
4
2
.
4
9
4
2
.
4
9
4
2
.
2
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
1
.
1
9
4
1
.
2
9
4
1
.
5
9
4
2
.
6
9
4
2
.
3
942.1 941.1 941.7 94
2
.
2
9
4
2
.
4
9
4
2
.
0
9
4
2
.
8
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
1
.
4
9
4
1
.
7
9
4
2
.
8
9
4
1
.
0
9
3
9
.
7
9
3
9
.
5
9
3
9
.
6
9
3
9
.
5
9
4
0
.
9
9
4
0
.
9
9
4
3
.
3
9
4
3
.
4
9
4
5
.
6
9
4
6
.
2
9
4
9
.
7
9
5
0
.
2
9
4
5
.
1
9
4
3
.
8
9
4
1
.
8
9
3
9
.
0
9
3
9
.
1
9
3
8
.
6
9
4
2
.
3
9
4
1
.
9
9
4
0
.
9
9
4
3
.
3
9
4
2
.
4
9
4
0
.
9
9
4
1
.
1
9
3
7
.
4
9
3
9
.
5
9
4
9
.
5
9
4
1
.
5
9
4
0
.
3
9
4
0
.
6
9
4
1
.
0
9
4
0
.
0
9
4
0
.
5
9
3
9
.
5
9
3
9
.
0
g
r
a
t
e
9
3
7
.
8
9
3
9
.
7
9
4
2
.
6
9
4
2
.
4
9
4
3
.
4
9
4
2
.
6
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
1
.
1
9
4
1
.
6
9
4
1
.
8
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
2
.
5
9
4
2
.
0
9
4
3
.
1
9
4
2
.
5
e
l
e
c
.
b
o
x
g
a
s
m
e
t
e
r
e
l
e
c
m
e
t
e
r
c
o
v
e
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
H
a
r
d
c
o
v
e
r
L
o
t
a
r
e
a
t
o
O
H
W
=
2
0
,
5
0
9
s
q
f
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
=
2
,
4
3
4
s
q
f
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
W
a
l
k
=
2
,
2
2
1
s
q
f
t
L
a
k
e
s
i
d
e
P
o
r
c
h
&
S
t
e
p
s
=
3
7
8
s
q
f
t
E
n
t
r
y
P
o
r
c
h
=
6
4
s
q
f
t
F
i
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
=
6
s
q
f
t
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
L
a
k
e
S
t
e
p
s
=
7
s
q
f
t
D
e
c
k
a
t
L
a
k
e
=
1
1
2
s
q
f
t
D
e
c
k
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
=
-
1
0
0
s
q
f
t
T
o
t
a
l
=
5
,
1
2
2
s
q
f
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
=
2
4
.
9
7
%
9
4
1
.
4
9
4
2
.
9
9
4
0
.
9
9
4
1
.
0
9
4
0
.
4
9
4
3
.
4
9
4
2
.
7
9
4
3
.
2
9
4
3
.
1
RevDrawn By
G
r
e
g
o
r
y
R
.
P
r
a
s
c
h
,
M
i
n
n
.
R
e
g
.
N
o
.
2
4
9
9
2
S
i
g
n
e
d
F:\survey\auditors subdivision - hennepin\265-4\as-265-4inv87391b final grade.dwg
B
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
i
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
F
.
B
.
N
O
.
I
N
V
O
I
C
E
N
O
.
The only easements shown are from plats of record or informationprovided by client.I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by meor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed landSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
8
7
3
9
1
B
1
0
9
7
-
3
0
2
0
'
Surveyed this 17th day of June 2019. MARK D. WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES
L
e
g
a
l
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
L
o
t
4
,
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
S
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
2
6
5
H
e
n
n
e
p
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Property located in Section20, Township 117, Range 23,Hennepin County, Minnesota
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
2
6
9
7
C
a
s
c
o
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
,
O
r
o
n
o
,
M
N
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
:
T
o
p
n
u
t
o
f
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
C
a
s
c
o
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
=
9
5
8
.
8
3
f
e
e
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
z
o
n
e
d
L
R
-
1
C
(
o
n
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
a
k
e
s
h
o
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
a
c
r
e
)
.
L
o
t
i
s
n
o
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
f
o
r
n
o
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
:
F
r
o
n
t
=
3
0
f
e
e
t
S
i
d
e
=
7
.
5
f
e
e
t
Surveyors Certificate 7601 73rd Avenue NorthMinneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093demarcinc.comFinal Grade As-Built Survey Fo
r
:
0
0
0
.
0
x
0
0
0
.
0
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
W
o
o
d
H
u
b
S
e
t
f
o
r
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
I
r
o
n
M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
F
o
u
n
d
I
r
o
n
M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
"
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
"
G
a
r
a
g
e
F
l
o
o
r
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
9
4
4
.
2
9
4
3
.
1
T
o
p
o
f
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
9
4
3
.
4
Looking toward Casco Point Road
Location for back up apron
Casco Point Road looking north
Casco Point Road looking south
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. LA20-000058 MARK & MARY ENGER, 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE.
STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS.
Mark and Mary Enger, Applicants, were present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Curtis noted due to a calculation error by the
Surveyor, the property is currently 43 square feet over the 25% hardcover limit. Staff does not
recommend approval of the variance; if the Commission finds Practical Difficulties support granting the
variance to accommodate the turnaround requested, and the additional miscalculated hardcover, a
recommendation for approval may be appropriate.
Kirchner asked if the 10x10 back-up pad was pavers, is there some square footage given credit over and
above that it wouldn’t then count towards the hardcover.
Ms. Curtis said it does not apply to driveways. The credit for pervious pavement applies to a walkable
surface (patio, sidewalk), but nothing that is driven on.
Mr. Mark Enger, homeowner, 2697 Casco Point Road, said as Ms. Curtis referenced, they are asking for a
small turnaround so cars can exit a very busy – and getting busier – road (Casco Point Road). He noted
this application is based on safety and all of the difficulties around it are tied to a safety element. He feels
the opportunity to exit the property facing the roads reduces the safety risk to the owners and visitors, but
also to the general public driving on Casco Point Road. Mr. Enger said Mrs. Enger’s parents owned the
property and they’ve been connected to it since the 1970’s and noted the property had a different design
and they didn’t have problems exiting the property many years ago. He said the existing property,
previous to the Enger’s construction had a hardcover of 30.49%; the proposal with the correction Ms.
Curtis referenced that the 100 square feet would bring the total hardcover to 25.7%. The driveway is very
long, steep and winding that connects directly to Casco Point Road. Since the Engers have lived there, it
seems to be getting busier with construction and service vehicles, and approximately 75% of homeowners
are exiting the very long dead-end road. He noted parking is currently allowed on both side of Casco
Point Road, which adds to the complexity and the impact on visibility. Mr. Enger said traffic coming
from the North to the South creates a particular visibility issue and noted their neighbors to the South
have a turnaround and their lot is a similar shape and size. He noted there have been several near-misses
backing out onto the road because of the traffic. As Ms. Curtis referenced, they have received many
letters of support from neighbors, and have heard from their mailman and service providers, many of
whom who have perhaps experienced the effort of backing out on to Casco Point Road. Mr. Enger said
when they designed the house, they were living in Oregon and quite frankly expected their designer to
identify some of the challenges of the driveway and did not. He also noted they weren’t expecting as
much traffic as there has been on Casco Point Road, and said the fact that they’re only asking for 100
square feet to solve a very present problem hopefully tells the Commission that they’re not trying to gain
the system. Mr. Enger said they are asking for approval of the variance application.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Chair Ressler asked Ms. Curtis on the right-hand side of the sketch onscreen where some is shaded
bituminous and some is clear but noted bituminous, he asked what the cutoff rendering is.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Enger said they have an easement with the neighbor and is a shared entrance to both of their
driveways and has been in place for many years.
Ms. Curtis said she’s not sure what the distinction is, it might just be new bituminous as it’s an As-Built
survey from the home’s construction, noting sometimes the surveyors like to get creative with their
textures.
Erickson asked if Mr. Enger has any comments regarding bicycle traffic or pedestrians.
Mr. Enger said there are kids in the neighborhood with bikes and adults who walk regularly and there are
many pedestrians that walk past the property every day.
Erickson said in reading the Staff report, he finds that the Applicants make a strong argument, identifying
safety, the busy roadway, the property’s unique design, slope and driveway as Practical Difficulties. He
finds that very convincing and there is also supporting documentation. It should be noted the homeowner
has significant neighborhood support as well, but to Erickson, it is the Practical Difficulties that he feels
are unique to the property; therefore he is inclined to support the variance.
Libby said for the same reasons Erickson and the Applicant articulated, he supports this. He noted he is
fortunate enough to have a driveway that is large enough to turn around and drive out and his habit is to
back out because he has the space and visibility to do that. Because the new development has had such
heavy traffic, both from construction and new residents, he tends to turn around and go out facing the
street so he has that peripheral visibility in both directions. He supports the Staff’s decision on this
because he thinks it’s very practical and a safety issue.
Chair Ressler noted he believes Staff recommended denial.
Libby said it was Practical Difficulty.
Chair Ressler clarified Commissioner Libby feels Practical Difficulty has been met for approval.
Gettman added that the Applicant was kind enough to answer his question, which is “who is to blame,”
and found out it was the designer when they were out West.
Mr. Enger noted he did a good job on the rest of the house.
Kirchner said hindsight is always 20/20 and having just built a home 12-18 months ago, it is hard to
imagine every minor detail and he understands that within the overall task of building and designing a
home, he sees how a driveway may be overlooked. He noted although he is not typically one to support
any bit of deviation in making hardcover worse, he believes there are Practical Difficulties here and he
can empathize based on his law enforcement career with the safety of backing onto a road. He believes
the Applicant has demonstrated line-of-sight issues and for those reasons he would support this one.
Chair Ressler said this long lot is difficult to navigate, they can’t make the driveway any smaller and they
can’t take space from the existing driveway to create room for a turnaround, unless they wanted to drive
through grass to get to the road. He said he will caution the Applicant the Commission has had these
applications before on Casco Point Road in recent memory that have been denied, which is most likely
where Staff finds their recommendation because of that. Chair Ressler can see this one is a bit different
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
because in other applications there were ways to make things work and it wasn’t a turnaround situation.
Therefore, he is in support of the variance application because of the turnaround and he doesn’t believe
there is another way to do it.
Gettman moved, Erickson seconded, to approve LA20-000058, 2697 Casco Point Road, Variance as
applied. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
From:Jeff Essen
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2697 Casco Point Rd
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:21:11 PM
Melanie,
Regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting and the requested variance for hard
cover at 2697 Casco Point Rd. The traffic on Casco Point Road ( CPR) has become
increasingly heavy. The current driveway configuration requires the resident to back up hill on
a curve to enter CPR, a very dangerous maneuver .
The addition of a 10X10 foot paved turn around would allow the driver to enter CPR from a
forward facing position. I encourage the planning commission to approve this variance request
Thank you
Jeff Essen
2648 Casco Point Rd
From:Karl Freienmuth
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Variance Application - 2697 Casco Point Road
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:10:46 PM
Dear Ms. Curtis,
I reside at 2659 Casco Point Road in Orono. I’m writing to express my support for a hardcover
variance application by my neighbors, the Engers of 2697 Casco Point Road. My understanding is
that they are applying for a permit to pave a turnaround space to facilitate cars, delivery, and service
vehicles which, with a little additional space, would not have to back out onto Casco Point Road from
the residence. As a frequent walker in the neighborhood (with dogs on leash, of course), I can attest
that a turnaround space allowing vehicles to drive up the hill and enter CPR facing forward would
enhance safety significantly. We all know how driving forward is better that backing up!
Thanks for your consideration
Karl Freienmuth
2659 Casco Point Road
Orono, MN 55391
612-803-2963
From:Richard Putnam
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Engler Variance
Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 10:03:51 AM
Melanie and Planning Commission Members,
We live several houses away from Mark and Mary Engler on Casco Point
and want to register our support for their hardcover variance
LA20-000058. Their request makes sense from a safety standpoint,
especially given the steep grade of their driveway and its
intersection with Casco Point Road.
Thank you,
Richard and Janet Putnam
2765 Casco Point Road
From:Robert
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Variance for Enger
Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 11:34:26 AM
To Whom it may concern or Mary C,
Good morning, I understand that our neighbors Mark and Mary Enger are applying for a 100
sq foot
variance for hardcover for the purpose to build a small turnaround in their driveway so they
don't have
to back up onto the street. I’m in totally support for this because of the safety it provides
for them not
having to back up into a public street regular now or even in the winter which is very unsafe. I
personally have to back into my house every night so I can pull out with not having to back out
into a
blind street.
Please accept this email as my support for the variance.
Regards,
Robert Breon
From:Jeff Loehmann
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2697 Casco Point Road, request a hardcover variance
Date:Saturday, September 19, 2020 10:49:14 AM
Hello,
I am writing to note my support of Mark and Mary Enger's proposal for a driveway turnaround
on their property. This item is on the agenda for Monday's meeting. The addition of the
turnaround will improve functionality of their property and will also increase safety being that
people will no longer need to back out of the driveway when entering the right of way. The
agenda item is listed below:
LA20-000058 Mark and Mary Enger, 2697 Casco Point Road, request a hardcover variance
to add a 10’x10’ back-up apron to their existing driveway resulting in approximately 25.6%
hardcover where 25% is allowed.
I am a neighbor of Mark and Mary (2710 Casco Point) and am in support of this proposal..
Thank you, Jeff
From:mmengers
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:FW: Driveway Enger
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 6:34:29 PM
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Jon Sothman <jsothman70@gmail.com>
Date: 9/18/20 9:34 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: mmengers@aol.com
Subject: Driveway
The variance the Engers are asking for will be a great improvement on their driveway and
make it a lot safer for them and me!
Thank you!
Jon Sothman
(Mail carrier USPS)
Sent from my iPhone
City of Orono,,
I’m writing to share several safety concerns I have regarding the driveway at 2697 Casco Point
Road. I visit the Enger home frequently and their driveway is not only very challenging, but
unsafe as well. They don’t have enough space to turn around, so when leaving their home you
back up and out of the driveway onto Casco Point Road. You have an obstructed view with the
curve heading South so you are backing up blind onto a busy road. Besides a personal concern,
as a nurse, I feel it would be very difficult if not impossible for an ambulance or other emergency
vehicles to exit their driveway safely.
Sincerely,
Connie McClurg
3155 Olive Lane N, Plymouth, 55447
612-819-1860
From:Mark Enger
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Fwd: Notice regarding LA20-000058 Enger Hardcover Variance Casco Point Road
Date:Sunday, September 20, 2020 7:51:20 AM
Hi Melanie, here is the support from Dave Runkle. It was sent to the commission members.
Mark Enger
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dave Runkle <Dave_Runkle@msn.com>
Date: September 20, 2020 at 7:39:38 AM CDT
To: "Mark Enger (markenger2@gmail.com)" <markenger2@gmail.com>
Cc: "luann_runkle@msn.com" <luann_runkle@msn.com>
Subject: FW: Notice regarding LA20-000058 Enger Hardcover Variance
Casco Point Road
Hi Mark and Mary,
Copy of the e-mail that we send to the planning commission earlier this week is below.
Certainly would expect the commisseshes to approve your request
DR
None of the emails bounced back so I think that they all got it.
From: Dave Runkle
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:46 AM
To: jonRessler@outlook.com; ericksonrobert@comcast.net;
christopherbollis@gmail.com; MattGOronoMNPlanCommissionMbr@gmail.com;
kirchner.scott@gmail.com; dennislibby@remax.net; mccutcheon.r.mark@gmail.com
Cc: luann_runkle@msn.com; dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn.us
Subject: Notice regarding LA20-000058 Enger Hardcover Variance Casco Point Road
Orono Planning Commission Members,
My wife and I received a postcard notification regarding LA20-000058 variance request
as our property is in close proximity to the Enger property subject of the variance.
We request that the Commission members approve the variance which will allow for a
car turnaround on the property and improve safety concerns on narrow and very busy
Casco Point Road.
A vehicle backing on to Casco Point Road at any time is a major hazard especially in the
winter with a steep driveway that the Enger property has. I am sure that the
commission will see the necessity of a back-up apron and approve the hardcover
variance.
Dave Runkle LuAnn Runkle
2684 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391-9722
dave_runkle@msn.com
20200917
From:Mark Enger
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Fwd: Driveway
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 12:38:21 PM
Letter of support for the Enger variance application.
Mark
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: keith Schaehrer <keithschaehrerllc@gmail.com>
Date: September 15, 2020 at 5:25:43 PM CDT
To: mmengers@aol.com
Cc: Mark Enger <markenger2@gmail.com>
Subject: Driveway
Hi Mary and Mark
I wanted to show support for your driveway variance.
Unfortunately because of the limitations of hardcover, I am finding as often as I
come to your home for maintenance, I choose not to drive down your driveway
with My pick-up truck. I have found I do more damage then good recking your
grass. I am unable to turn around at the bottom of the driveway and head up
forward and it makes it very unsafe for me and those coming down Casco Point rd
from both directions. I find myself stopping at the top looking both ways and then
just easing backwards and hope for the best. I have a had a few close calls.
I hope the City allows you to add a small area to back into to turn around so you
can see the on coming traffic when you get to the top of the driveway. it would be
truly be a much safer situation.
I also can not imagine where your plow truck driver pushes the snow in the winter
time. He surly cannot push it down the driveway towards your home or at all.
Best wishes
Keith
Keith Schaehrer Llc
Principal
Construction Management Specialist
From:mmengers
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Fwd: Enger Driveway
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 12:39:17 PM
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Thomas Wendel <bigbucktom@gmail.com>
Date: 9/18/20 11:30 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: mmengers@aol.com
Subject: Fwd:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Thomas Wendel <bigbucktom@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 11:06 AM
Subject:
To: <mmengers@aol.com>
To whom it may concern. Concerning the driveway at the Enger residents last winter I was
there on a service call upon leaving the residence I was trying to turn around in the driveway
with a full size service van I was not able to turn around and ended up getting stuck. After
getting on stuck I had to back out of the driveway upon reaching Casco road I was not able to
see oncoming traffic it was very dangerous. There should be a turnaround somewhere in the
driveway.
Tom Wedel DJ's Heating and Air
Date Application Received: 08/19/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/25/2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/25/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 21 September 2020
Subject: #LA20-000058, Mark & Mary Enger, 2697 Casco Point Rd,
Variance
Public Hearing
Background
The owners built a new home on the property which was completed in 2019. The project was
designed to conform to the 25% hardcover limitation. After living in the home through one
winter the owners have realized there are a number of challenges in their driveway design
relating to its length and narrowness; its orientation and proximity to the home; and the steep
slope leading up to Casco Point Road. They are requesting a hardcover variance to permit an
additional 100 square feet of driveway hardcover to add a 10’ x 10’ back up apron so they and
their guests may drive out of the property facing frontward.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified safety, the busy roadway, the
property’s unique design, slope and driveway easement as practical difficulties supporting the
requested variance. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding
Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony
regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there may be
consideration for the slope and access challenges to support a small hardcover variance. The
home is newly constructed suggesting that the difficulty is self-created.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to add a 10’x10’
driveway turnaround.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the additional hardcover if
planning commission finds practical difficulty supports a variance.
FILE #LA20-000058
21 Sept 2020
Page 2 of 4
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-1288; 78-1680; and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 20,509 s.f. 5,127 s.f.
(25 %)
5,170 s.f.
(25.2%)
5,270 s.f.
(25.7%)
Applicable Regulations:
Hardcover Variance (Sections 78-1288; 78-1680; and 78-1700)
Due to a calculation error by the surveyor, the property is currently 43 square feet over the 25%
limitation. The applicants are requesting approval for an additional 100 square feet of hardcover
in addition to the acknowledgment of the additional 43 square feet. In reviewing the hardcover
elements on the property there few areas where reductions can occur as the house and
driveway account for the majority of the site hardcover. The length of the driveway combined
with the steepness of the road approach suggest that a turnaround area should have been
included in the original plans
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard lot
has difficulties in its slope, small size and depth, and unique configuration with the
driveway easement and Casco Point Road.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The hardcover variance is
requested to alleviate the owners’ safety concern relating to the challenging driveway
configuration which is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
FILE #LA20-000058
21 Sept 2020
Page 3 of 4
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The variance request to allow expansion of
the driveway hardcover may be reasonable and may be supported by the
practical difficulties found in the restricted maneuverability which results from
the narrow width and orientation on the property in addition to the steep
access to the elevated, highly trafficked roadway is not unreasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The shared driveway access and topography of the lot were not created by the
owners. However the recent redevelopment of the property provided a
missed opportunity to improve the driveway situation; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The minimal
hardcover variance requested to provide better maneuverability on the
driveway will not alter the essential character.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono
City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a driveway for a residence is an
allowed use in the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The sloped topography, lot width and
depth, and shared driveway situation are particular to this property.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The street adjacent to this lot is substantially higher than the
house. The slope conditions and orientation of the access to the busy roadway do not
generally apply to the other properties in the LR-1C district.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The owners indicate that granting the
hardcover variance is necessary for the preservation of their property right.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting a
hardcover variance to allow for a safer driveway in this situation is not contrary to the
intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. All of the practical difficulties have
not been met to justify supporting the hardcover variance. It appears the driveway
configuration should have been addressed with the Owners’ recent redevelopment of
the property. The granting of the variance would alleviate created safety concerns for
the owners, rather than convenience. This criterion is not met.
FILE #LA20-000058
21 Sept 2020
Page 4 of 4
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
Comments from neighbors have been received. The comments are attached as Exhibit F.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
While understanding and appreciating the plight of the applicant, Planning staff cannot
recommend approval of the variance. Staff encourages the Commissioners to visit this property.
If the Commission finds that the practical difficulties support granting of a variance to
accommodate the 100 square foot turnaround and the additional 43 square feet of hardcover
erroneously miscalculated, a recommendation for approval may be appropriate.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Applicant Photos
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. This application is regarding lot area and lot width variances in order to develop a
property with substandard area and width. All setbacks and requirements will be met.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered to be complete
on August 24th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on October 23rd.
3. Background/ Summary. The property owner lived on the property in a single family home as a
child. The home was destroyed by fire in the 1980s and since that time has remained vacant. A
demolition permit for the foundation remnants was recently issued. The applicant is requesting lot
area and lot width variances to develop the Lot of Record with a single family home which meets
all zoning requirements.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 21st the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a
motion to approve the requested variances.
5. Public Comment. No written comments from the neighbors were received. Public comment
presented at the Planning Commission meeting is summarized in the enclosed draft Minutes
attached as Exhibit C. The public comments were primarily regarding drainage, traffic levels at
the intersection, and concern about the septic viability. In response to the public comments please
refer to the information attached as Exhibits D, E, F, and G.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. City Engineer Comment
E. Building Official Comment – Septic
F. FEMA Flood Map
G. MCWD Email – No Wetland
H. PC Staff Report
Item No.: 11 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000062 – Bob Molstad with Sathre-Bergquist o/b/o Ellen
Forcier, 4780 North Arm Drive West, Variances – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
References
PC Exhibits 09/21/2020
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Proposed Survey
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. 1977 Survey
F. MCWD Email – no wetland
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-420
FILE NO. LA20-000062
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2020, Ellen Forcier (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied
for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 4780 North Arm Drive West and legally
described as:
The South 215.5 feet (13 rods) of the West 152.25 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4, Section 6, Township 117, North, Range 23, West of the 5th principal
meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances
from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to allow development of an existing Lot of
Record with substandard area and width; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2020, after published and mailed notice in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application and
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA20-000062. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
2. The Property is located in the RR-1B One Family Rural Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 32,658 square feet (0.75 acres) in gross area and has a defined lot
width of 152 feet. After exclusion of the portions of the property 33 feet from the centerline
of both North Arm Drive West and CSAH 19, the property contains a net area of 21,644
square feet (0.5 acre) and 119.25 feet in width.
4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed home and improvements will conform
to the RR-1B District setbacks and requirements.
5. The Applicant has proposed a Type VI septic system due to the restricted space available
for a standard drainfield which has been approved by the Building Official.
6. Applicant has applied for the following variances:
a. Lot Width Variance
b. Lot Area Variance
7. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The variances requested to redevelop this nonconforming
lot of record, resulting in a plan which meets all of the zoning requirements, are in harmony
with the ordinance.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The variances proposed to develop this nonconforming lot of record
are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The request to permit construction of the home in a conforming location on the
substandard property is reasonable.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The substandard size is an existing condition. There is no available land with which
to make the Property more conforming; and
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home in a
conforming location which will not alter the character of the neighborhood; the
variances are reasonable.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as a single family home in a conforming location
is an allowed use in the RR-1B District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” Although the Property is likely the smallest in
the immediate neighborhood, there are other properties within the neighborhood which do
not conform to the 2.0 acre minimum standard. The proposed level of development is not
out of character.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The Property’s 0.5 acre size is not common in the district, however it is a
lot of record and the development with a home which meets all of the zoning setbacks and
requirements. The variances provide reasonable use.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting lot area and lot width variances are
necessary for the preservation of the property right of the owner.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the
variances for lot width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of
the zoning chapter.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variances for lot area, and lot width
are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the owner.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to allow development of an existing Lot
of Record with substandard area and width, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated April 23, 2019, and revised on
August 21, 2020, and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City
staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be
completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on
that date (12 October 2021).
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of October, 2020.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
15
2
.
2
8
f
t
11
9
.
0
7
f
t
8
1
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
BY
D
E
S
I
G
N
a
n
d
D
R
A
F
T
I
N
G
B
Y
:
P
H
O
N
E
:
7
6
3
.
7
5
7
.
5
9
9
7
A
N
D
O
V
E
R
,
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
W
W
W
.
C
R
O
I
X
D
E
S
I
G
N
.
C
O
M
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
a
n
d
D
R
A
F
T
I
N
G
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
H
O
M
E
P
A
L
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
C
U
S
T
O
M
H
O
M
E
S
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
I
N
G
C
C
E
N
T
2 8
C
C
E
N
T
5 8
C
C
E
N
T
8
1
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
B
Y
DESIGN and DRAFTING BY:
PHONE: 763.757.5997 ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
WWW.CROIXDESIGN.COM
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN and DRAFTING SERVICE
HOME PALN SERVICE CUSTOM HOMES REMODELINGCCENT
2
8
CCENT
3
8
CCENT
4
8
CCENT
5
8
CCENT
6
8
CCENT
7
8
CCENT
8
8
CCENT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. LA20-000062 ACCENT HOMES, 4780 NORTH ARM DRIVE WEST, VARIANCE.
STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS.
Ellen Forcier, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Curtis noted Planning Staff recommends approval
of the requested variances to develop the property.
Chair Ressler said just to summarize, the 2 acres and 200 feet is what triggers this variance.
Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative.
Chair Ressler noted any lot they want to build on that isn’t already developed will trigger that.
Mr. Curtis replied yes, or to redevelop.
Ellen Forcier, 3109 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, noted the property 4780 North Arm Drive is
where she grew up in a home with her mother and two sisters. She noted the home burned in about 1985
and was left to Ms. Forcier and her daughter in the hopes from her mother that they would build on the
property at some point. Ms. Forcier and her husband are at the point of looking at one-level living and
that is why the property has been empty for as long as it has been. They’re asking for the variance, and as
Ms. Curtis stated, the house fits within but the septic does not.
Ms. Curtis clarified the septic does meet the setbacks.
Libby asked if the existing septic or the septic design is in compliance.
Ms. Curtis responded the septic design has been approved by the building official.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Robin Johnson, 4730 North Arm Drive, is attending to request the Planning Commission hear her
concerns regarding the building permit requested by the owner of 4780 North Arm Drive. She noted this
is a five-acre lot that has stood abandoned since a home burned on the site in the mid-1980’s. Prior to
that, it is Ms. Johnson’s understanding the site was the original Orono one-room Swedish schoolhouse
that’s been memorialized by a plaque in Legacy Park. The original fieldstone foundation of the original
Orono Swedish schoolhouse is still in-part intact on the site. In July 2020, the neighborhood woke up to
the sound of the site being clear-cut, which she understands the owner has the right to do. At the time, the
site had completely grown over. Ms. Johnson asked to point out some intricacies about that corner,
there’s been a lot of new density brought into County Road 19 right there including the Lakeview
Development and Red Oak, that corner (19 and North Arm) is very high density and high traffic, moving
at about 50 miles per hour. She noted they see a significant amount of accidents and traffic on that
corner, especially on a slippery winter morning, she has seen 18-wheelers slide backward at the stop sign
on the corner. Because of the extreme overgrowth on the lot, very few people knew that historical site
existed, the homestead was abandoned and left in disrepair for over 35 years, leaving burned remnants, an
uncovered well cistern, and became the home for lots of overgrowth and wildlife. Ms. Johnson’s concern,
as is the concern of many of the surrounding property owners, and her understanding is that the lot is
unbuildable and they’ve been told that over time by the City Planners in decades past. The main reason
it’s unbuildable is because of the 50 foot setback from County Road 19 and the other issue is the septic
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
system, the City of Orono has benefitted from a 2-acre comprehensive plan and yes, there are some
provisions that afford combinations for smaller sites. She thinks she just heard them say it does meet all
of the requirements, but she believes this plan doesn’t actually meet the 50 foot setback and that it doesn’t
meet the setback on the North side.
Ms. Curtis clarified it is a 30 foot setback from County Road 19.
Ms. Johnson also has a concern around the watershed, noting the McKinney development and six homes
North of the corner, a peak with elevation, and all of that land drains into a creek which runs into Ms.
Johnson’s backyard, and then heads South toward the backside of 350 North Arm and ultimately drains in
the space between 4780 and 4760, running into a huge culvert that goes under North Arm and creates the
river/creek that runs into Lakeview Lake. Ms. Johnson noted there is so much water in the spring, it
appears to be a rushing creek, and the backside of 4780 has significant water drainage in a flood plain all
spring and she wants to make sure the Minnehaha Watershed has reviewed the owners plan. She asked
regarding the new septic system, will the City be setting precedence to allow .5-acre property owners to
have a new septic system that doesn’t have a mound and doesn’t have the requirements under 780200 A
and B? She also understands the new septic system must be pumped every fifty days and asked how that
will be handled by the owner.
Chair Ressler asked to address the questions one at a time.
Ms. Johnson asked about the new septic system, as her understanding is everyone who lives in Orono
must have a mound.
Ms. Curtis answered everyone in Orono doesn’t have to have a mound, but they must have a compliant
system, and there are different types of systems. She noted this is a system that requires a maintenance
plan, as it isn’t a standard trench or mound system, but has a maintenance component over and above one
of those systems. She stated it is an acceptable system and the Building Official has approved the system.
Ms. Johnson asked if there are any others like it in the City.
Ms. Curtis replied she doesn’t know.
Chair Ressler believes there is soil testing to see how fast the water percolates.
Ms. Curtis said they’ve done the testing on the site and this is the type of system that has been designed to
work and is acceptable.
Libby said any design that is done must be by a licensed, credentialed, Minnesota Department of Health
design engineer.
Ms. Johnson noted many surrounding areas have a mound and have had to update their mound systems at
great expense to meet City requirements, and she asked if this will create precedence so other
homeowners can look into this system that takes up less space and may be more suitable.
Ms. Curtis said it is, but this isn’t the desired system, it’s not cheaper or better, it is more intensive,
requires a higher level of maintenance, and isn’t something most homeowners would want. She noted a
mound system is one step up from a trench system because there isn’t a separation, noting homeowners
aren’t required to have a mound, but are required to meet the standard.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Johnson noted the lot has received zero maintenance for 35 years by the landowner and now they’re
going to have a 50-day maintenance system on it. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and City
Zoning, its deemed unbuildable unless it meets the planning requirements, and asked if one of the unique
requirements will be that is has a specialized septic system.
Ms. Curtis replied it is required to have sewage treatment, yes.
Ms. Johnson asked if the Minnehaha Watershed has reviewed the analysis.
Ms. Curtis isn’t entirely sure what Ms. Johnson is asking but noted the Watershed District were required
to do a wetland delineation, which showed there was no wetland on the property. There will be drainage
over the property, as everyone’s home has drainage across the lot. The Applicant will be required to
maintain the drainage and are showing they will do so with the grading plan.
Ms. Johnson noted it is a very small piece of land and they want to make sure all of the requirements have
been reviewed. She said in part, trust has been lost because the site was demolished before grading
permitting had been approved and there is concern that the City has been able to take the time and
necessary precautions to make sure it won’t have a negative impact on the surrounding areas. Going back
to the safety issues, she asked how building on that corner will impact visibility on County Road 19,
which has very high traffic density, and even having a garbage truck at that point could potentially be a
detriment to traffic. She asked if the Commissioners are familiar with the corner.
The Commissioners replied yes, they are very familiar with it.
Gettman said his concern is someone coming at 50 miles per hour over the hill and down County Road 19
is then blind to that garbage truck, or someone will try to go around them, and it will be a head-on. He
understands completely, but it all goes back to the money the homeowner’s association/group that was
against the Lakeview Development spent on lawyers, and asked if there’s been any discussion on buying
that property.
Ms. Johnson said there are other individuals more suited to speak on behalf of the Lakeview Organization
than she is, but once they saw the land was being cleared and that building was teeing up, through
discovery, she learned that the Lakeview Legacy Park had approached the last Mayor and City Planning
group to see if the City would be willing to sell them the land so it could be attached to Legacy Park and
restore the original Orono one-room schoolhouse. She noted they didn’t realize it would be built again
and they haven’t had a chance to mobilize an offer. She reiterated the visibility, safety and the watershed
(if impeded, significant flooding will occur on the land behind it, which is Ms. Johnson’s property). Ms.
Johnson said when the land was clear-cut, the owners chipped all of the trees and used it to fill in ravines
around the corner before any watershed had come out, so again trust has been broken and concerns are in
place because normal process and procedure hasn’t been respected.
Ms. Curtis said she believes the oversight in the demolition permit was that it was a foundation; she
doesn’t think they were aware they needed a demolition permit for the pieces of the foundation that were
there. She doesn’t believe they were trying to subvert any City regulations.
Bud Dropps, owner of Accent Homes who will be the builder on the project, stated they have a
demolition permit and had permission to cut the trees down, there was a wetland delineation, the
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Minnehaha Watershed District came out to look at the property. He noted the creek is not on this
property.
Chair Ressler clarified that whenever there is a situation, the Watershed must weigh in on whether there
are wetlands on the property.
Ms. Curtis said the Watershed District has reviewed the wetland delineation that says no wetlands are
present and that is the official record; it doesn’t mean there isn’t drainage across the property or seasonal
water, but it isn’t a wetland. She noted it’s in the property owner’s best interest to make sure the water
that comes to the property moves off the property in the way it has been and the engineer has reviewed
the grading plan and approved it.
Chair Ressler noted the final grading would verify the proposed grading that has been approved by the
engineer is met.
Ms. Curtis said the As-Built Survey would confirm that.
Mr. Dropps said they will keep the erosion control in place until turf is established.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Gettman said regarding the question of whether or not it’s wetlands, it’s the runoff, and could potentially
have a negative impact with the runoff. The bigger issue he has in looking at the Practical Difficulties is
whether or not this is a Taking, as the property is not conducive to be built upon, there are many issues
and variances to be able to build on the property. This begs the question if it’s not buildable, then it’s a
Taking, and the City would actually buy it. He understands that the property owner wants to build on it
and enjoy it, and he appreciates that, however it is a horrible location for what has been built around it and
are causing the Difficulties they’re trying to deal with. He doesn’t have a magic solution and that is what
he’s struggling with. As Ms. Johnson noted, there are accidents across County Road (CR) 19, accidents
as they’re coming down CR 19, and the new people in the Lakeview Development who will fly by the
area as they’re rushing up the hill to turn right onto CR 19. Gettman said it’s a very difficult corner to
deal with. He believes everyone should have a right to build on their property with whatever variances
that can be accommodated to enjoy that property, and this one he struggles with because of the location as
its been left for 35 and many things have happened around the property that has made it very difficult to
build on without adverse effects.
Ms. Forcier’s husband Jeff Anderson said in talking about the issue of traffic, if they don’t build, what is
the City going to do about it. If it’s an issue, it should be addressed but it doesn’t have anything to do
with the lot and the runoff is off the property and it’s not affected by anything on the property.
Gettman said that is his struggle, the runoff literally goes right under the road which is where the
driveway would be. With respect to the traffic, Mr. Anderson is absolutely right, that traffic isn’t going
away whether or not they build, but it will be exacerbated and made potentially worse if someone stops in
front of their house, someone will have to pull around and that will be a head-on collision when someone
is turning left to go onto North Arm.
Mr. Anderson said they would have to do that even if the house wasn’t there.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gettman said nobody would be stopping there, whether it’s a mailman or garbage collector; currently it’s
a vacant lot and that’s why the question as far as having some workable solution for all parties, he’s not
being adversarial, but that is the issue they’re dealing with. He stated he can’t imagine the property
owners finally making the decision to build on the property and now this, he doesn’t envy that position
and he appreciates their patience as he tries to voice some of those concerns.
Kirchner respectfully disagrees, he doesn’t think it’s the Commission’s place, nor is it fair to place traffic
or highway concerns onto an individual lot-owner; rather it falls on the County to do a traffic study and
figure out a re-engineering plan. He said the Applicants have submitted a plan that abides by all of the
setbacks and the only reason they’re here asking for it, is because when it was originally platted, it was
under the size of what Orono has now changed the Comprehensive Plan to. Therefore, that is the only
reason there is a trigger for a variance, because when it was originally platted, they didn’t have a 2-acre
minimum or it didn’t apply to this area. He asked Staff if the purple-to-red dot in front of 4760 is where
the culvert is and it would not run under the driveway at 4780 North Arm Drive.
Ms. Curtis responded that is what the map is indicating.
Kirchner said he would approve and support this variance.
Erickson doesn’t have a comment; he is comfortable with the Staff report.
Libby said with all due respect to the public comments and objections, he doesn’t find anything empirical
in any of that discussion that would prohibit or impede a private property owner that has elected to have a
home-site. He said they have agency, plenty of planning and scrutiny by 4-5 different agencies that say
the lot is buildable. He noted the discussion about whether or not there is a watershed or wetland and the
delineation is a federal delineation, is seasonal and based on 100-year flood plains. If you go to Hennepin
County tax information there is an astounding set of resources to be able to see where wetlands are, the
meander of stream and creeks, and how frequently they flood. Libby said he hasn’t done that, but if the
public commenter would look they’d find there is a lot of difference between a wetland and a flood plain.
He said the flood plain concerns him very little, he also has just designed 5 sub-surface treatment systems,
which is a current term for septic treatment, and he is very involved with the engineering and design of 4-
5 methods and all are under the auspices of the State mandate, regardless of the municipality. They must
have an ongoing maintenance and service pumping, unless it was an old system with a drain field, which
are all considered failed. He is trying to respect the public comments but he can’t find anything in a
material fact issue that would really be an objection strong enough to persuade the homeowner not to
build their house. He is in favor and would approve it.
Chair Ressler noted it’s a 1/2 –acre lot, it’s not little, and he believes the driveway will dump out onto
North Arm Drive and immediately allow egress onto CR 19 so the disruption to the neighborhood traffic
is minimal. He said it’s certainly not ideal but he doesn’t have a concern about that. Chair Ressler noted
they don’t have any other setbacks to consider besides what is triggering the variance, which is that it’s
not a 2-acre parcel. He has zero problem with this application as submitted, although he respects
differences of opinion.
Gettman said he thinks it should be clear that anything he’s articulated has nothing to do with an actual
clear Staff-driven declination of this application; it is their advisement to the City Council that he is trying
to articulate. He noted these are things that aren’t as clear and it is a difficult lot and his question is
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
whether the City is willing to make an adverse possession and take it, because it’s similar to the
discussion they had with the developers of Lakeview wanting to switch some of the lots. Gettman said
the Commission has nothing to do to deny it, but it is back to the advisory role. He said he doesn’t see a
Practical Difficulty that’s a required Staff reason for denial, but there may be the opportunity to meet with
some of the other neighbors to see what opportunities there are. He stated that is out of the Commission’s
purview but comes down to their role in making a recommendation to the City Council.
Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA20-000062, 4780 North Arm Drive West,
Variance, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
From:Adam Edwards
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:RE: #LA20-000062 / 4780 North Arm
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:19:52 PM
Melanie,
1.There does not appear to be a “ creek” depicted on the survey. Nor does one show up on
our mapping system. There is a stream located on the property to the east flowing north to
south (see excerpt from SWMP map below).
2.The site plan appears to retain the overall drainage pattern for the lot which is from
northwest to southeast into the roadside ditch on North Arm Drive W.
Adam
From:Roger Peitso
To:Jeremy Barnhart
Cc:Melanie Curtis
Subject:RE: 4780 North Arm Septic system
Date:Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:58:46 PM
Melanie,
The septic system that is being installed is called a Type IV system. A Type I system is a standard or a
normal system. They are the same in that they both use a septic tanks for settling out the solids and
they both have a drain field used for dispersal and treatment of the effluent.
The Type IV system is using pre-treatment technology for the affluent. It is a way to get “credit” in
the design process so the drainfield can be constructed smaller or lower to grade than a Type I
system. The designer felt this was necessary due to the restricted space available on the lot. The pre-
treatment system is called and Eco-Pod. It has filter media inside of a 500 gallon tank.
Another benefit of using this Eco-Pod is it starts the aerobic treatment process of the affluent before
getting to the drainfield. Then the drainfield does not need to work as hard during the treatment
process as a Type I system would. This can help with the longevity of the drainfield.
A drawback is that there is more maintenance needed for a Type IV system. The tanks need to be
checked every 6 months and may need to be pumped more often that every 3 years. The frequency
is based on the inspections and how much use the system gets.
It this enough information?
Thanks,
Roger
From: Jeremy Barnhart
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:03 PM
To: Roger Peitso <rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us>
Cc: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: 4780 North Arm
Give Melanie a memo outlining the maintenance requirements of the designed septic system on this
lot, please.
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April 2020
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 9/30/2020 at 4:45 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
93°39'1"W 44°58'30"N
93°38'23"W 44°58'4"N
From:Heidi Quinn
To:Stacey L Lijewski; Carlson, Ben (BWSR); Melissa.Collins@state.mn.us; Bud Dropps; Dan Margarit;
usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil; Melanie Curtis; Christine Mattson; Will Roach
Subject:(Hennepin County) MCWD W20-17 NOD: 4780 North Arm Drive, Orono
Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 11:58:14 AM
Attachments:image002.png
W20-17 NOD.PDF
Orono Wetland Investigation Report.pdf
Minnesota Joint Application_Orono Accent Homes.pdf
Good Afternoon,
Please find the attached Notice of Decision confirming that no wetlands are
present at the above referenced address. I am having an issues merging the
documents in adobe while working remotely, therefore the delineation report
and application are attached separately. Please let me know if you have
questions.
Thank you,
Heidi
Heidi Quinn | Permitting Technician | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | Office: 952-641-4504
Date Application Received: 08/24/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/24/2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/23/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 21 September 2020
Subject: #LA20-000062, Bob Molstad with Sathre-Bergquist o/b/o Ellen Forcier
4780 North Arm Dr W
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The subject property previously had a single family home; a demolition permit for the foundation
remnants was recently issued. The applicant, representing the property owner, is requesting lot
area and lot width variances to develop the Lot of Record with a single family home which meets
all zoning requirements.
Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant
Submittal Information: The applicant has
identified the property’s Record Lot status; the
substandard area and width as well as the
inability to purchase additional land; and the
roadway easements impacting the property size
as practical difficulties supporting the requested
variances. Additionally, they have provided
supporting documentation regarding Practical
Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be
asked for additional testimony regarding the
application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis:
Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there is
practical difficulty in the property’s existing area
and width impacting its inability to conform to
the current zoning requirements for lot area and
width.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to
develop a property with substandard area and width. All setbacks and requirements will be
met.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA20-000062
21 Sept 2020
Page 2 of 4
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-420 - Setbacks:
RR-1B Required Proposed
Front 50’ 50.7’
Rear 50’ 80’
Side Street (CSAH 19) 30’ 30.2’
Side 30’ 30’
Section 78- 420 - Lot Area/Width:
RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’
Actual 21,644 s.f. (0.5 acre)* 119.25’
*After removal of the right-of-way areas. Gross area = 32,658 s.f. (0.75 acre) – ROW 11,014 s.f. =
21,644 s.f. (0.5 acre) net.
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
21,644 s.f. (0.5 acre) Allowed: 4,328 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,383 s.f. (11%)
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Section 78-420)
Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the
minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within
a Rural District greater than one acre in area and not served by city sewer, like the subject lot within
the RR-1B District, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as:
1. The lot area and lot width each meet at least 50 percent of the district standard.
2. Suitable primary and alternate septic sites are identified on the property and are protected
from future development by execution of a covenant.
3. All other zoning ordinance requirements must be met, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Setbacks.
b. Hardcover.
c. Lot coverage by structures.
d. Accessory structure requirements.
The property’s size does not meet 50% of the RR-1B District 2-acre requirement for area (50% = 1-acre)
and lack of a second septic treatment area result in the property’s inability to conform to all of the
standards above. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances are required in order to redevelop the
property. The ability to develop the property consistent with other existing developed properties in the
neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of
property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval
FILE # LA20-000062
21 Sept 2020
Page 3 of 4
for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that
such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but
are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be
granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in
harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is
not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
variances requested to redevelop this nonconforming property, resulting in a plan which
meets all of the zoning requirements, are in harmony with the ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances proposed to develop
this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; the request to permit construction of the home
in a conforming location on the substandard lot is reasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The
substandard size is an existing condition. There is no available land with which to
make the property more conforming, and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances
are requested in order to permit construction of a home in a conforming
location which will not alter the character of the neighborhood, which is
reasonable.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a residence is an allowed use in the RR-1B
District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. Although the subject property is likely the
smallest, there are other properties within the immediate neighborhood which do not
conform to the 2.0 acre minimum standard. The proposed level of development is not
out of character.
FILE # LA20-000062
21 Sept 2020
Page 4 of 4
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s 0.5 acre size is not common in the district, however it
is a lot of record and the development with a home which meets all of the zoning
setbacks and requirements. The variances grant reasonable use.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area and lot width variances are
necessary for the preservation of the property right of the owner.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
variances for lot width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent
of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for lot area, and lot width
are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the owner.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any
conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received on the variance request. However, this site has
generated a number of recent comments from the immediate neighborhood anticipating
development; nothing in writing has been submitted.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. 1977 Survey
Exhibit F. MCWD Email – no wetland
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. Agreement to allow an existing accessory building to remain on the property until the
addition and new accessory building are complete.
2. Background. The property owner has requested retention of a garage on the property while an
addition to the home and new accessory building are constructed. Staff and the City Attorney have
prepared and agreement (Exhibit A), for the property owner to sign, which will require the removal of the
existing accessory building within 60 days of the final inspection for the home addition, upon which time
the permit for the home addition can be closed. If the existing accessory building is to remain the
property would become over in hardcover. The agreement gives authority to the city to facilitate the
accessory building to be removed.
3. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the agreement and authorization of the Mayors signature.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of the agreement and authorization of the Mayors signature.
Exhibits
A. 2520 Casco Cir, Accessory Building Removal Agreement with Exhibits
Item No.: 12 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: 2520 Casco Point Road, Ron and Holly Rocca, Accessory Building
Removal Agreement
Presenter: Laura Oakden
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
1
176503v1
(Reserved for Recording Data)
Agreement for Removal and/or Retention of Accessory
Structure During Construction of Principal Structure Addition
Right-of-Entry
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ______ day of ______________,
20__, by Ronald Rocca and Holly Rocca, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as
“Applicants”) and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to
as the “City”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Applicants are the owners of the Subject Property, which property is
located at 2520 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, and legally described on the attached Exhibit “A” (hereinafter referred to as the
“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property contains an existing residential structure (“Existing
Primary Structure”) and a detached accessory structure (“Accessory Structure”) as shown on the
survey or site plan attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City to build an addition to the
principal residence (“Principal Structure”) and seek City approval to maintain the Existing
Accessory Structure until the Principal Structure addition is completed; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to allow the Existing Accessory Structure to remain on the
Subject Property during the completion of the construction addition to the Principal Structure;
and
WHEREAS, once the City has approved the final inspections for the Principle Structure
addition, the demolition of the Existing Accessory Structure, grading and landscaping shall be
completed within 60 from the approval of the final inspection.
2
176503v1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AGREE TO THE
FOLLOWING:
1. Applicants may retain the Existing Accessory Structure on the Subject Property during
the completion of the construction of the addition to Principal Structure, subject to the
following conditions:
A) Applicant agrees to obtain the necessary building permits for construction all
project.
B) Applicants agree to complete the demolition and removal of the Existing
Accessory Structure, complete grading and landscaping within 60 of the final
inspection for the addition to the Principal Structure, and obtain an inspection and
approval by the City.
C) If the Applicants fail to (i) perform the demolition and removal obligation of the
Existing Accessory Structure on the Subject Property; and (ii) complete grading
and landscaping and obtain City inspection and approval, as set forth in
subparagraph B above, the Applicants hereby agree as follows:
1) The City may enter upon the Subject Property and remove the Existing
Accessory Structure;
2) The City may enter upon the Subject Property and complete grading and
landscaping; and
3) The City may assess the costs of removal to the Subject Property.
2. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of
this Agreement and to its terms, as shown by his/her/their/its signature(s) upon this
document.
3. Applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents
and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses,
including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the
City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the
assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the
performance of the terms of this agreement.
(Signatures contained on the following pages.)
3
176503v1
CITY OF ORONO:
By:__________________________________
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
By:__________________________________
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
________________, 20__, by Dennis Walsh and Dustin Rief, respectively, the Mayor and City
Administrator for the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City
and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
____________________________________
Notary Public
4
176503v1
APPLICANTS:
______________________________________
Ronald Rocca
______________________________________
Holly Rocca
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_________________, 2020, by Ronald Rocca and Holly Rocca, husband and wife.
____________________________________
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell Knutson
Professional Association
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (651) 452-5000
SMM/jmo
5
176503v1
EXHIBIT A
The southwesterly half of Lot 4, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
6
176503v1
EXHIBIT B
AGENDA ITEM
Item No.: 13 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Andrew Meyers House District 33B
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Public Comment
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to expend public funds on a Holiday
Tree Lighting Event on December 5th, 2020.
2. Background. For the past two years the City has sponsored a holiday tree lighting event at the
Municipal Golf Course. The event is intended to bring residents, local business and organizations together
for an event to kick off the holiday season. This year the organizing committee is looking to add some
additional attractions such as a holiday market themed tents, reindeer exhibit and a fireworks display. In
order to fund these items the committee is requesting the City Council authorize city funding for the
event. -
3. Cost. The table below outlines the estimated costs for the event.
Activity / Item Purpose Est. Cost Type
Staff Planning (10hrs) City Staff effort to support the planning
committee
$700 Labor
Staff Set Up (2x16 hrs) Decorate Clubhouse and holiday tree $1100 Labor
Staff Clubhouse Attendant (1x4 hrs) Open an man clubhouse on day of the
event
$100 Labor
Police support (2x4 hrs) Parking/ Traffic Management $400 Labor
4 ea 10 x10 Tents with sides Create Holiday market aesthetic $800 Material
Holiday Decorations Decorate 10x10 tents $320 Material
4 ea Portable Fire Pits Create Socially Distanced S’mores
Opportunity
$600 Material
Cups and other consumables To support Beverage and food Service $50 Material
Firewood For Fire Pits $150 Material
Reindeer Rental (3 hours) Holiday photo station $1500 Entertainment
Fire Works Display (15 Minutes) To look at fireworks $10,000 Entertainment
City Insurance modification Special coverage required when hosting
fireworks
$250 Entertainment
TOTAL $15,970
4. Funding. The table below lists the activities and costs by funding source type. Labor costs to support
the event are already accounted for in the operating budgets. If the Council wishes to fund the materials
and entertainment elements of the plan those amounts would need to come from the Contingency fund
account. It is the intent of the Organizing committee to find sponsors for the entertainment services and
reimburse the city.
Activity / Item Funding Req. City Funding Source
Staff / City Labor $2,300 Park, GC and Police Operating Budgets
Materials $1,920 Contingency Funds
Entertainment Services $11,750 Contingency Funds
5. Volunteers and Donations. The organizing committee plans to have the food and some to of the
entertainment donated and provided by volunteers. The committee will provide a follow on council
action for the city to accept any private sponsorships and donated materials.
Organization/ Vendor Description of Service to be Provided
North Mallow S’mores and sticks and napkins
Item No.: 14 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Holiday Tree Lighting Event Request For Funds
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Public Work/
City Engineer
TBD Provide brats, buns, condiments
North Mallow Hot Chocolate
Long Lake Fire Department Cook and serve Brats
Long Lake Fire Department Provide Firewood and manage fire pits
Long Lake Fire Department Transport Santa
Orono Police Department Provide Santa and Costume – NOTE contract Santa not available in 2020
Orono Parks Commission Man Ticket Tent
Orono Parks Commission Volunteer set up and decorations
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion for authorize the use of public fund to support the Holiday Tree Lighting Event.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance.
2. Background. The property has a home and an existing accessory structure on a substandard lot.
The accessory structure is currently placed 2’ from the side property line where 7.5’ is required. The
applicant is proposing to add a loft to the building and raise the roof line which will increase the massing
of the building in the setback area. The applicant has submitted additional documents outlining the plans
to manage any drainage for the site, Exhibit C.
3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on 8/18/2020. Following the 60-day rule
the review period expires on 10/17/2020.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
application and held a public hearing on September 21, 2020. The Commission noted that the applicant is
using the same footprint and saving some of the existing building. The Commission noted concerns
regarding the proposed steep roof pitch and draining on the property with the small existing (2-foot) setback.
The Commission voted 3-2 (Ressler and Gettman) to deny the variance request.
5. Public Comment. The neighbor to the south submitted a letter of support for the project. The neighbor
to the north has submitted some comments regarding the application. They have concerns regarding
drainage and suggested gutters be placed on the buildings. The email is included as Exhibit G.
Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff find the practical difficulties are not met and recommends denial.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
The Council should review the application and determine if the practical difficulties are met for the
variance required. Council should direct staff to draft a resolution.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Survey
B. Proposed Plans
C. Proposed Hardcover
D. Update Drainage plans
E. Neighbor Comments
F. Narrative
G. PC Minutes
H. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits
A. Application and Narrative
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing & Proposed Survey
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F. Engineer Comments
Item No.: 15 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000056 – Kuhl Design Build, 3249 Casco Circle, Variance
Presenter: Laura Oakden
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
G. Neighbor Comments
H. Property Owners List and Map
Kuhl Design Build
1515 S. 5th St
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.935.9469
A1.0
NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION
Variance Set
19 August 2020
Site plan
R e m o d e l o f O u t b u i l d i n g f o r
J o h n a n d L i z
E l l e n b e r g e r
3 2 4 9 C a s c o C i r c l e
O r n o , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1
COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD
If another contractor will be using the plans
for construction, it will first be necessary for
the homeowner to (i) pay all design fees due
Kuhl Design Build, and (ii) sign Kuhl Design
Build standard copyright license agreement,
a copy of which will be made available.
When those conditions are satisfied, the
designs may be used without infringement
of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright.
NOT TO SCALE: SEE FULL SIZE SURVEY.
EXIST.
EAVE EXIST FRAMING
EXIST.
EAVE
E X I S T .
E A V E
E X I S T . F R A M I N G
E X I S T
E A V E
RE-GRADE TO ENTRY
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 Site Plan
A1.0
Kuhl Design Build
1515 S. 5th St
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.935.9469
A1.1
NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION
Variance Set
19 August 2020
Main Floor Plan
R e m o d e l o f O u t b u i l d i n g f o r
J o h n a n d L i z
E l l e n b e r g e r
3 2 4 9 C a s c o C i r c l e
O r n o , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1
COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD
If another contractor will be using the plans
for construction, it will first be necessary for
the homeowner to (i) pay all design fees due
Kuhl Design Build, and (ii) sign Kuhl Design
Build standard copyright license agreement,
a copy of which will be made available.
When those conditions are satisfied, the
designs may be used without infringement
of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright.
W07W07W07W07
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 1 0 1
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
W 0 7
27'-11"
26'-11"
2 2 '-4 1 /2 "
2 1 '-4 "
Alternating
step stair
ELEC
1
A2.0
2
A2.0
3
A2.0
4
A2.0
27'-11"
26'-11"
2 2 '-4 1 /2 "
2 1 '-4 "
E L E C
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 Main Level New Plan
A1.1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 Main Level Demo Plan
A1.1
Kuhl Design Build
1515 S. 5th St
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.935.9469
A1.2
NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION
Variance Set
19 August 2020
Upper Level Plan
R e m o d e l o f O u t b u i l d i n g f o r
J o h n a n d L i z
E l l e n b e r g e r
3 2 4 9 C a s c o C i r c l e
O r n o , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1
COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD
If another contractor will be using the plans
for construction, it will first be necessary for
the homeowner to (i) pay all design fees due
Kuhl Design Build, and (ii) sign Kuhl Design
Build standard copyright license agreement,
a copy of which will be made available.
When those conditions are satisfied, the
designs may be used without infringement
of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright.
1
A2.0
2
A2.0
3
A2.0
4
A2.0
Open to below
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 Upper Level
A1.2
Kuhl Design Build
1515 S. 5th St
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.935.9469
A 2.0
NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION
Variance Set
19 August 2020
Exterior Elevations
R e m o d e l o f O u t b u i l d i n g f o r
J o h n a n d L i z
E l l e n b e r g e r
3 2 4 9 C a s c o C i r c l e
O r n o , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1
COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD
If another contractor will be using the plans
for construction, it will first be necessary for
the homeowner to (i) pay all design fees due
Kuhl Design Build, and (ii) sign Kuhl Design
Build standard copyright license agreement,
a copy of which will be made available.
When those conditions are satisfied, the
designs may be used without infringement
of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright.
1 3 '-4 3 /4 "
E x i s t i n g H e i g h t
2 4 '-1 1 3 /4 "
N e w H e i g h t
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 West Elevation
A2.0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 South Elevation
A2.0
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 East Elevation
A2.0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 North Elevation
A2.0
Kuhl Design Build
1515 S. 5th St
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.935.9469
A 2.0
NOT FOR REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
PERMITTING, OR
CONSTRUCTION
Variance Set
19 August 2020
Exterior Elevations
R e m o d e l o f O u t b u i l d i n g f o r
J o h n a n d L i z
E l l e n b e r g e r
3 2 4 9 C a s c o C i r c l e
O r n o , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1
COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD
If another contractor will be using the plans
for construction, it will first be necessary for
the homeowner to (i) pay all design fees due
Kuhl Design Build, and (ii) sign Kuhl Design
Build standard copyright license agreement,
a copy of which will be made available.
When those conditions are satisfied, the
designs may be used without infringement
of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright.
1 3 '-4 3 /4 "
E x i s t i n g H e i g h t
2 4 '-1 1 3 /4 "
N e w H e i g h t
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 West Elevation
A2.0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 South Elevation
A2.0
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 East Elevation
A2.0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 North Elevation
A2.0
9/2/20
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed changes to the structure at 3249 Casco
Circle. I live at 3247Casco Circle. John & Liz have shared the designs with us, and we
feel that the proposed changes will do nothing but improve the overall feel and
appearance of our neighborhood. We support the requested variance and it will in
no way adversely affect our property.
Thank you,
J.C. & Mary Beth Kiser
From:The Kochs
To:Laura Oakden
Subject:Re: 3249 Casco Cir- Plans
Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:27:06 PM
Laura:
We appreciate the work John and Liz have done on their property, and the renovated out-building looks
nice. The only concern we have is the water coming off the roof toward our property at 3251 Casco
Circle. That area of the yard is already "wet." This is especially true during rain events. And we expect
the water volume and speed will be significantly increased with the larger and more pitched roof. We
would ask that a gutter be placed along the north side of the side of the structure to capture the water and
direct it away from our property (either to the east or west of the structure).
I understand we do not need to attend the hearing in-person since we have provided this input. Please
let us know if we are wrong about that.
Thanks.
Bill and Laurie Koch
From: "Laura Oakden" <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us>
To: "mnkochs" <mnkochs@mchsi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 9:17:46 AM
Subject: 3249 Casco Cir- Plans
Bill,
Here are the submitted plans for the new garage. Please let me know if you have any
questions or comments you would like to submit to the Planning Commission for review.
Thank you
Laura Oakden
Planner
City of Orono
Direct 952.249.4602
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
www.ci.orono.mn.us
All Permitting is done through our new online portal LINK!
1515 South 5th Street Hopkins, MN 55343 T 952.935.9469 F 952.258.8300
www.kuhldesignbuild.com
KUHL DESIGN+BUILD, LLC
Additional variance request information:
Project overview:
Currently there is a structure on the site that is in disrepair and architecturally does not fit in
the neighborhood.
We are proposing to construct a new structure, using the existing location, slab and exterior
walls but increase the roof system to match the existing house design and provide for a
more pleasing neighborhood appearance.
Due to the width of the lot and the existing proximity to the lot line, we are asking for a slight
variance for the roof line. This roof line will not impact any sight line of the neighbors as the
majority of their house is to the lake side of the proposed structure. There are no rear neigh-
bors as this is designated as a city park.
The variance we are seeking is very much in keeping with the spirit of the code. The desire
of the homeowner is to improve the appeal of the neighborhood as this structure is one of
the first things you see when coming around the corner of Casco Circle.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request.
Best,
Dan Murphy
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. LA20-000056 KUHL DESIGN BUILD, 3249 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE. STAFF:
MELANIE CURTIS
John and Elizabeth Ellenberger, Applicants, were present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information. Staff finds the applicant does not meet Practical
Difficulty standards and recommends a denial. Ms. Curtis noted the neighbor to the South submitted a
letter of support and the neighbor to the North submitted comments regarding the application with
concerns regarding drainage and gutters be placed on the building, as well. Ms. Curtis noted onscreen she
has highlighted the red area where she measured out the 7.5 foot setback and they can see the existing
building currently sits about 2 feet from the building. She noted the blue-shaded area of the new
roofline/loft is considered the new encroachment within the setback and is what is triggering the variance;
the rest of it (outside the blue area) is outside the setback.
Chair Ressler said in the spirit of like-kind, the existing structure as applied is to be replaced from where
it is today.
Ms. Curtis believes they’re even proposing to maintain some walls, she thinks they’re talking about
changing out some windows and doorway, maintaining some walls and foundation, and creating a new
upper space. She said they can replace it in the exact same manner if they choose to rebuild it, but the
expansion of the roof is what is triggering the need for the variance.
Chair Ressler noted they’re really talking about just going up.
Ms. Curtis answered that is correct.
Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build, 1515 5th Street South, Hopkins, said what they’re trying to do is
maintain the slab, sightline and everything that is there. He noted it is essentially a rear garage, not
hindering views of the lake, and if one knows the neighborhood, they come around the corner and see an
old building sitting there. He said they’re trying to leave the building’s footprint, North wall, most of the
walls will be left, but they’re trying to maximize the architecture of the new house with the pitch of the
roof. He said as they can see with the elevations, most of that is allowed, they aren’t trying to make a
bigger footprint or change the location of anything. He said they’re more than willing to do the drainage,
gutters, and everything; they’re really trying to make it something a bit more attractive in the
neighborhood as people come around the corner, and make it match the architecture of the house. He
noted they could do a flat corner on the roof and still do the rest of it, which wouldn’t look very nice. He
clarified they are not trying to over-mass anything for the neighborhood and it’s not a very big area that
they’re trying to get the variance on.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:46 p.m.
Kirchner noted one neighbor submitted a letter raising concerns over the drainage and asked if they were
generally in support but concerned about drainage.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Curtis said she believes it’s included in the packet, and the neighbor noted that they wished to have
gutters/drainage looked at because of the tight setback. They said the renovated outbuilding looks nice
and the only concern is the water drainage.
Kirchner said he always struggles with setbacks and further encroaching into them. He understands that
height is primarily the issue on this application rather than getting closer to the property line, however he
feels it isn’t quite a like-kind improvement as it’s not a rebuild of the existing dimensions including the
height; it’s an extension of that.
Gettman agreed with Kirchner, the only Practical Difficulty seems to be similar to the last application and
that it’s really trying to avoid the aesthetic issue as opposed to a Practical Difficulty that the Commission
would normally consider to overwhelm the variance for height.
Libby asked on the design element, what is the existing pitch of the roof, as it almost looks like it’s close
to a 12/12 pitch.
Mr. Murphy said he believes it is a 12/12, but if they were going to do anything to that roof, anything
above the existing pitch, which is almost flat right now, no matter what is done on the structure with
building code, they will have to do an energy heel, if they build it to comply with City’s code. He said no
matter what he does it will be above the dotted line on screen which will automatically trigger coming in
for a variance. He noted that is what he struggles with: no matter what he does with the building/roof, it’s
not going to fit within the parameters of what the City is allowing. He noted the structure is old and the
trusses might be 2x6, so if he has to build it to code, he will have to come in and get a variance. No
matter what they do, it was decided that they should make it architecturally pleasing for the entire
neighborhood. He stated it’s out of compliance as it is and if he tries to do anything, it will be out of
compliance.
Libby asked what the pitch is of the existing roof.
Mr. Murphy said he is unsure, but it might be a 3/12 or a 4/12 at the most, noting it’s pretty flat.
Gettman asked what the minimum roof is that the dotted line would have to be raised, as it looks like
they’ve basically raised another story. He said if they need to increase by 6 inches, one foot, two feet, to
accommodate an accurate pitch.
Mr. Murphy said he can’t tell that for sure, if they have to do trusses it will be 16 inches at minimum.
Gettman noted the design is more than 16 inches.
Kirchner said it is 10 feet.
Gettman said that is what the Commission is struggling with, to go the 16 inches, what the Practical
Difficulty is that they need to go above a certain amount, but that isn’t 10 feet.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Murphy said they’re only looking for 5 feet, and everything outside of the blue area is within
compliance. He clarified any roof system he puts in will be inside the blue area and will need a variance
regardless.
Erickson would like to point out the communication from a neighbor concerned about drainage, noting
the two foot setback area is currently a wet area, and were concerned that new construction might
possibly make that worse. Even if that weren’t the case, he has a similar concern with this application in
that there is land on the property where a new structure could be built in a different location and would
comply with at least the side setback. He noted he considers it a fairly extreme setback down to a two
foot variance as compared to one that might be in compliance. He feels the best justification other than
the roofline is that they want to use the existing slab, which to him, if they’re going to rebuild the entire
structure, only costs a little more to pour a new slab. Based on that, his inclination is to deny the
application.
Chair Ressler asked if the application is not necessarily rebuilding the entire structure, it’s just a matter of
redoing the roof and going up as long as the existing structure supports it.
Ms. Oakden answered yes, the plan shows they are proposing new windows and doors, but most of the
structure is maintained and includes a new roofline.
Chair Ressler said his perspective is if they were rebuilding, that roofline is probably arguably insufficient
as far as runoff. He said it’s occupying the same area of runoff with a sharp pitch versus a shallow pitch.
In this circumstance, he is in support of it because going up is adding on to existing structure, trying to
make it conform to a shallow pitch for 5.5 feet with some sort of weird half wall, go up and carry on…he
said it’s doing a lot to make not a lot of impact, change or improvement from how the neighbors are going
to be impacted by the water runoff. He thinks this is a good opportunity for the neighbors, before it gets
to the City Council, the neighbors can get together with the applicant and discuss what a plan is and see if
their support can be rallied as that can be an improvement to a situation that right now is apparently a
difficulty. Chair Ressler is in support of the application because of those circumstances.
John Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle, homeowner, said he appreciates the perspectives each of them
brought to this project. He said from the start, they’ve felt it’s not so much a rebuilding as it is making it
work more effectively for their needs. He said they’ve been focused on cubic feet versus square feet
because what isn’t shown is a structure, noting there was previously another 28 feet heading towards the
house that was removed during the rebuild of the home. In reading the neighbor’s full letters, they are
supportive and are just saying if this happens, they want to improve the drainage by putting eaves on the
building, which Mr. Ellenberger is fully compliant with. He noted both neighbors are fully supportive.
Across the street isn’t a home, rather it’s the park so they will not be obstructing the view of anyone
towards the lake. He said it was those types of things that made them feel it is a relatively minimal
change.
Gettman noted as mentioned several times, the setbacks are sacred to the Commission. He said the
homeowner has done a lot of things and tried to do it all for the right reasons, he asked why the
homeowner wouldn’t want to pull the building back 4.5-5 feet and then go as high and wide as they want
into their land. He said it comes back to the sacred part, as the building is already encroaching, so the
Commission is trying to protect a further encroachment. He noted they’ve had massive arguments,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
especially close to lakeshore when people have a carriage area or dock that is turned into a home. He
asked Mr. Ellenberger to help the Commission understand the Practical Difficulty and what is preventing
him – noting again he’s done a masterful job in trying to keep the same footprint.
Mr. Ellenberger thinks the answer to that question is, in the 2.5 years they’ve owned the property; they’ve
looked at the structure and how to use it for office, exercise and some storage. He noted the cubic space
was more helpful to them overall, as the driveway is 8 feet wide, and to move the structure anywhere else
on the lot would put it in front of the main house, as there is no other place to effectively put the structure.
He felt the efficiency of keeping what they could wasn’t the key driver, they felt going up is a workable
solution.
Libby commented regarding the redesign of the roof and pitch, noting he has been involved in many types
of roof design with that pitch and he knows the outcome or consequence is with a pitch of that severity.
He said in most remedies of the fast and rapid leaving of the rain/heavy water because of the fast velocity
that comes with heavier pitch, most of the time they’ve had to remediate those with very large (5-7 inch
width) extruded gutters, heavy downspouts and drain tile to take the water away. Libby can’t see the
Practical Difficulty to start with and thinks they don’t fully understand that they’re compounding a
problem by asking the Commission to allow the owner to move it closer to the lot line, which compresses
the amount of area for drainage and putting a 12/12 pitch which will exacerbate that drainage problem.
He thinks they homeowner is far better off to move the building back because the cost incurred in trying
to remediate the drainage problems – which neighbors have already expressed concern about – and Libby
can say from a factual standpoint, that it will compound the problem by having a 12 pitch roof.
Ms. Elizabeth Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle, homeowner noted they have addressed that drainage is an
issue. She noted that Ivy hits Casco Circle at a higher point and according to City Staff, Casco is
supposed to be re-done and that problem will be addressed. She said they’re in talks to do the entire
remediation and the current structure doesn’t have gutters on that side, but does have gutters on another
side, which are in disrepair. She clarified it is an issue and it is being addressed.
Chair Ressler noted that is good feedback and if it goes before the City Council, working directly with
those neighbors and stating exactly what they’re looking to do may change what is determined, approved
or denied. He said getting neighbors comfortable knowing they’re improving a situation might get others
more comfortable with approval.
Kirchner moved, Libby seconded, to deny LA20-000056, 3249 Casco Circle Variance as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2 (Gettman and Ressler).
Date Application Received: 08/18/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/18/2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/17/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden
Planner
Date: September 21, 2020
Subject: #LA20-000056, Kuhl Design Build, 3249 Casco Cir, Variance
Public Hearing
Background
The property has a home and an existing accessory structure on a substandard lot. The
accessory structure is currently placed 2’ from the side property line where 7.5’ is required. The
applicant is proposing to add a loft to the building and raise the roof line which will increase the
massing of the building in the setback area.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified current placement of the structure
as a practical difficulty supporting the requested variance. Additionally, they have provided
supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be
asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the
application has reasonable use of the property for a single family home. The existing accessory
building is legal nonconforming and can be re-built and maintained, or relocated. There is open
space on the property within the conforming building setbacks. The new roof line
encroachment would serve as a convenience and is not necessary for the use of the property.
Staff finds the practical difficulties have not been met.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 – Accessory Building Setbacks:
No proposed phanges to the existing setback. The project would create a new encroachment
with a taller roofline within the North side setbacks. The existing garage is 2’ where a 7.5’ is
required.
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: The property current has 15.8% structural
coverage with no proposed changes.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff finds the applicant does not meet practical
difficulty standards.
LA20-000056
September 21, 2020
Page 2 of 4
Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: The proposed is currently at 24.99% hardcover and
has no proposed changes with this project.
Applicable Regulations:
78-350 (Side yard Setback)
The LR-1C has a 10’ side yard setback. It allow for a smaller 7.5’ setback for narrow substandard
lots. This property has a 7.5’ side yard setback. The property has an accessory building which
sits 2’ from the north side property line. The applicant is proposing to increase the roofline
creating additional massing and a new encroachment into the side yard setback.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Due to
the scope the proposed variances are not in harmony with the purpose of the
Ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed expansions for
the accessory building are not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The expansion is on an existing accessory
structure which currently sits 2’ from the property line where 7.5’ is required is
considered an new encroachment. The property has reasonable use with the
existing home and accessory building. This is not met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
and The applicant stated that due to the original placement of the building
limits any possibility to roof line improvements. The current structure is in
disarray and making the proposed changes will improve the neighborhood.
Staff finds the current existing accessory building is nonconforming and can be
maintained. The proposed encroachment for a new roofline is created by the
landowner.
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant
states the variance will enhance the character of the area.
LA20-000056
September 21, 2020
Page 3 of 4
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family home with an accessory
building is an allowed use in the Lr-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property is substandard in size and has
an existing nonconforming accessory building, which also apply to many properties in
the area. The setbacks are not out of character.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The existing accessory building is located within a setback which is
nonconforming to the city code. This is similar to other structures in the district.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states the due to the location
of the existing accessory building on the property, the goal for the remodel/
encroachment is to make it safer and more attractive. Staff finds there is other
locations of the property that are conforming to the code and the applicant is able to
rebuild the existing accessory structure in-kind in the same location. The owner
currently has use of the property for the enjoyment of the principle home. The
encroachment for an accessory building in the setback would act as a convenience.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed
roofline encroachment is not supported by practical difficulty and maybe contrary to
the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed roofline encroachment
would serve as a convenience to the applicant as they have reasonable use of the
property for a single family home.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Engineer Comments. The structure is close to the property line. I would recommend installation
of gutters and downspouts or other means to ensure roof runoff is not directed toward
the neighboring property.
Public Comments
LA20-000056
September 21, 2020
Page 4 of 4
The neighbor to the south submitted a letter of support for the project. The neighbor to the north
has submitted some comments regarding the application. They have concerns regarding
drainage and suggested gutters be placed on the buildings. The email is included as Exhibit
G.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff find the practical difficulties are not met and recommends denial.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application and Narrative
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Engineer Comments
Exhibit G. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit H. Property Owners List and Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a street yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the
existing home.
2. Background. The applicant is looking to convert an existing garage into living space for the
home. They are proposing to construct a new garage addition with porch above in the street yard. The
applicant originally requested 4 variances: Street yard setback, Average Lakeshore Setback, variance
from the driveway back up apron standards, and a driveway wider than 8’ in the 75’ lakeyard (Exhibit
F). The applicant submitted addition information for the Commissioners to review, Exhibit G. After
review by the Planning Commission, the applicant submitted amended plans, reducing the size of the
addition by 2 feet, eliminating 3 of the variances. The applicant is requesting a street yard setback
variance to allow a 16’ setback (30’ is required), Exhibit A and B.
The applicant has submitted additional information noting that they have redesigned the plans. The
applicant also included photos of a neighboring project (1973 Fagerness Point Rd) stating they would like
a similar outcome. While the applicant’s proposed project would be very similar in design to the
referenced neighbor’s (1973) final project the properties have very different existing conditions. 1973
Fagerness had an existing garage and received variances which allowed them to reconstruct the
garage. Their reconstructed garage is roughly 4’ farther back from the street than the existing garage,
improving the nonconformity. Their hardcover increased from 18.5% to 21%, yet still below the allowed
25%; new hardcover was permitted in the 75’ lakeyard to allow for a driveway. The applicant’s additional
narrative and the approved plans for 1973 Fagerness are attached as Exhibits C and D.
2. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on August 30, 2020. Following the 60-
day rule the application review period will expire October 29, 2020.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the presented item
and held the public hearing on September 21st, 2020. The applicant had submitted addition information for
a narrative and practical difficulty attached as Exhibit D for the Planning Commission Meeting. The
Commissioners reviewed the application and discussed the 4 proposed variances. Commissioners came to
a consensus that they could not support the application as proposed. However, with amendments to the
project including removal of the encroachment into the Average Lakeshore Setback, might make for a
stronger variance application. The Commission found that the practical difficulties submitted did not
support the requested variances. The Commission voted 5-0 to deny to variance request.
4. Public Comment
Three letters of public comment were received (1971, 1975 and 1981 Fagerness Pt. Rd.) Exhibit E.
5. Staff Recommendation.
Staff had recommended denial for the original application with a 4 proposed variances.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
The Council should review the amended plans and determine if practical difficulties are met. Council
should then direct staff to draft a resolution.
Item No.: 16 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000057 – Michael Gallus Construction Inc., 1985 Fagerness
Point Road, Variances
Presenter: Laura Oakden
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
Exhibits
A. Amended Survey and Hardcover
B. Amended Floor Plans and Elevations
C. Additional Information by Application 10.8.20
D. 1973 Fagerness Plans- Approved 2019
E. Neighbor Submitted Letters
F. Original Application survey and plans
G. Narrative from Planning Commission Meeting 9.21.20
H. Planning Commission Minutes
I. Planning Commission Staff Report.
References
PC Exhibits
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing & Proposed Survey and Images
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F. Neighbor Submitted Letters
G. Property Owners List and Map
#1
9
8
5
TH
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
EL
E
V
-
9
4
9
.
3
LAKE
MINNETONKA
TOP NUT HYD
ELEV = 933.80
EL
E
V
-
9
3
7
.
5
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1
9
8
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1987
EXISTING HOUSE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
PO
R
C
H
SAN MH
FA
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
LAKE
MINNETONKA
3
#1
9
8
5
TH
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
EL
E
V
-
9
4
9
.
3
LAKE
MINNETONKA
TOP NUT HYD
ELEV = 933.80
EL
E
V
-
9
3
7
.
5
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1
9
8
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1987
EXISTING HOUSE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
PO
R
C
H
SAN MH
FA
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
LAKE
MINNETONKA
3
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
22
.
0
20
.
0
18
.
7
4.0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
13
.
3
4
.
2
(651) 764-9521
RED WING, MN 55066
30692 HIGHWAY 58 BLVD
SURVEYORSPLANNERSENGINEERS
RIDGELINE
G R O U P
AUGUST 24, 2020 42302
MARK A SCHOENFELDER
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
PERMIT SET DATE:
REVISION :
PRINTED:
MAS
MAS
C1.0
CERTIFICATE
BASIS OF DRAWING FILE:
DATE OF SURVEY:
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
VERTICAL DATUM:
ADDITIONAL FILE INFORMATION:
08-14-2020
HENNEPIN COUNTY
NAD83(2011) REF: VRS
NAVD88 REF: VRS
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
OR
O
N
O
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
620019
%EN&+0AR.ELEVA7ION
TOP NUT HYDRANT NEAR SOUTHWESTERLY LOT LINE
BENCHMARK
+ARD&OVERSU00ARY
Stormwater Quality Overlay District:Tier 1
Allowable Lot Coverage:25%
Allowable Coverage Area: 4,336 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Area:4,279 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Percentage:24.67%
O:NERIN)OR0A7ION
MATTHEW & ALISSA BRIGGS
1411 SCHOOL HOUSE RD
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108
PAR&ELID
18-117-23-14-0004
08/19/20
PROPER7YDES&RIP7ION
Lot 3, Fagerness; and the accretions to said lot lying between the northwesterly extensions to the
shoreline of Lake Minnetonka of the northeasterly and the southwesterly line of said lot, and the accretions
to said lot lying between the southeasterly extension to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka of the
northeasterly line and of the southwesterly line of said lot and southeasterly of the southeasterly line of
Under the Linden Avenue, as dedicated in said plat, which southeastelry line is 40 feet southeasterly, as
measured at right angles, from the southeasterly line of said lot.
LO7AREA
17,345 +/- Square Feet
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
+ARD&OVERSU00ARY
Stormwater Quality Overlay District:Tier 1
Allowable Lot Coverage:25%
Allowable Coverage Area: 4,336 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Area:3,942 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Percentage:22.72%
Denotes an Iron Monument Found
with a Plastic Cap Stamped 42302 (or Otherwise Noted)
Denotes a 3/4 Inch x 15 Inch Iron Pipe Set
LEGEND
8/24/20 8/28/20 9/29/20
OF SURVEY
LOT 3, FAGERNESS and ADJOINING ACCRETIONS
HENNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Denotes Keynote for Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
1985 Fagerness Point Road
Mark Schoenfelder, PE, LS September 28, 2020
House Porch Covered Deck Patio
Concrete Drive within 75’ of Lake
Sidewalk/Stairs (To be Removed)
30’x10’/8’x2’
37’x4’ 36.5’x13.5’
18.8’x8’/8’x8’÷2
Garden Shed 8’x7.3’ 58
493 148
182 316
Stairs to Lake 32’x4’ 126
Irregular shape 661
40.3’x22.1’/18.4’x20.2’ 1,263
4,279
Retaining Walls not within 75’ of Lake 6.5’x1’/32.8’x1’ 39
4,318
39
17,345
24.67
Parking Pad 540 27’x20’
New Building Addition (To be Added) 22’x23’+13.3’x4’+10.2’x4.6’-(3’x3’÷2) 602
New Concrete Driveway (To be Added) 14.6’x13.5’/14.6’x4.5’ 263 New Stairs and Sidewalk (To be Added) 28.3’x4’ 113
Retaining Walls 174 42.3’x1’/52.5’x1’/78.8’x1’
Concrete Driveway (To be Removed) 20 13.5’x1’/13.5’x1’÷2
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
REVISION:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
B R I G G S A D D I T I O N
1 9 8 5 F A G E R N E S S P O I N T R D
W A Y Z A T A
M I N N E S O T A
9/29/2020
A1.1
EXTERIOR
RENDERING
D A N G A L L U S
SEP 29, 2020
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
REVISION:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
B R I G G S A D D I T I O N
1 9 8 5 F A G E R N E S S P O I N T R D
W A Y Z A T A
M I N N E S O T A
9/29/2020
A1.2
EXETERIOR
RENDERING
D A N G A L L U S
SEP 29, 2020
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
REVISION:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
B R I G G S A D D I T I O N
1 9 8 5 F A G E R N E S S P O I N T R D
W A Y Z A T A
M I N N E S O T A
9/29/2020
A1.3
EXTERIOR
RENDERING
D A N G A L L U S
SEP 29, 2020
SS
SS
SS SS
S SSS
SS
SS
3 3 0 0 6 6 8 8 S S T T L L E E N N T T R R Y Y D D O O O O R R
R R O O 3 3 ''--2 2 ½½"" X X 6 6 ''--1 1 0 0 ½½""
((V V E E R R I I F F Y Y W W // S S U U P P P P L L I I E E R R ))
3
3
0
0
6
6
8
8
S
S
T
T
L
L
E
E
N
N
T
T
R
R
Y
Y
D
D
O
O
O
O
R
R
R
R
O
O
3
3
'
'
-
-
2
2
½
½
"
"
X
X
6
6
'
'
-
-
1
1
0
0
½
½
"
"
(
(
V
V
E
E
R
R
I
I
F
F
Y
Y
W
W
/
/
S
S
U
U
P
P
P
P
L
L
I
I
E
E
R
R
)
)
RREE--LLOOCCAATTEEDD DDIINNNNIINNGG WWIINNOODDWW
VVEERRIIFFYY RROO WW// EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
9 9 ''--0 0 "" X X 8 8 ''--0 0 "" O O H H D D O O O O R R P P R R O O V V I I D D E E O O U U T T L L E E T T
F F O O R R O O P P E E N N E E R R W W //((2 2 )) R R E E M M O O T T E E S S V V E E R R I I F F Y Y S S T T Y Y L L E E
&& W W I I N N D D O O W W S S ,, 9 9 0 0 M M P P H H W W I I N N D D R R E E S S I I S S T T A A N N T T
22666688
2 2 8 8 6 6 8 8
22666688
33226688 PPDD
2 2 6 6 6 6 8 8
U U P P
2222'' ((AADDDDIITTIIOONN))2266''
6644'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
1111''--00""55''--66""99''--66"" ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
1133''--44""1188''--88""
33''1155''--88""
2 2 3 3 ''--0 0 ""
4 4 ''
4 4 6 6 ''
1 1 9 9 ''--0 0 "" ((V V E E R R I I F F Y Y ))
2 2 7 7 ''--0 0 "" ((A A D D D D I I T T I I O O N N ))
2 2 0 0 ''--0 0 ""
3 3 ''
GGAARRAAGGEE
BBEEDDRROOOOMM
WWIICCBBAATTHH
EEXX BBEEDDRROOOOMM
HHAALLLL
SSTTOORRAAGGEE
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
REVISION:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
B R I G G S A D D I T I O N
1 9 8 5 F A G E R N E S S P O I N T R D
W A Y Z A T A
M I N N E S O T A
9/29/2020
A2.0
LOWER LEVEL
ADDITION
D A N G A L L U S
SEP 29, 2020
1 1 2 2 '' P P A A T T I I O O B B I I --F F O O L L D D
E E X X I I S S T T I I N N G G
E E X X I I S S T T I I N N G G
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
GGAASS FFIIRREEPPLLAACCEE
1 1 8 8 ''
2222'' ((AADDDDIITTIIOONN))4422'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
6644'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
77''--00""
2 2 3 3 ''--0 0 ""
3 3 ''--1 1 1 1 ""
4 4 6 6 ''
1 1 9 9 ''--0 0 "" ((V V E E R R I I F F Y Y ))
2 2 7 7 ''--0 0 "" ((A A D D D D I I T T I I O O N N ))
2 2 0 0 ''--0 0 ""
3 3 ''
1133''--44""1188''--88""
33''1155''--88""
P P O O R R C C H H
EEXX DDIINNIINNGG
BBAALLCCOONNYY
CCOOVV PPOORRCCHH
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
REVISION:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
B R I G G S A D D I T I O N
1 9 8 5 F A G E R N E S S P O I N T R D
W A Y Z A T A
M I N N E S O T A
9/29/2020
A3.0
MAIN LEVEL
ADDITION
D A N G A L L U S
SEP 29, 2020
From:Matthew Briggs
To:Laura Oakden
Cc:Dan Gallus
Subject:Re: 1973
Date:Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:25:39 AM
Thank you for the quick response. Yes, please include as I think it's relevant in that this was a
recent approved remodel completed this summer. Matt
Matthew Briggs
CEO/FOUNDER
t. 866.841.9090
d. 651.583.7413
e. mbriggs@renttrack.com
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:14 AM Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote:
Hello Matt,
Thank you for reaching out with this information. I had responded to Dan’s email earlier
this week with the timeline of your application. The final packet with your application will
be sent to you this Friday (10/9). Your application will go to Monday October 12, 2020
City Council Meeting. The meeting is at 6pm and it would be helpful for you or a
representative to attend the meeting to speak to the project.
I agree that that you have eliminated 3 of the variance for your project and now will only
be requesting a street yard setback variance. Thank you for the information regarding
your neighbor’s project. Would you like me to include your below email for the City
Council to consider? I will need to know by 10 am today in order to get it into the
council’s official packet.
Thank you,
Laura Oakden
Planner
City of Orono
Direct 952.249.4602
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
www.ci.orono.mn.us
All Permitting is done through our new online portal LINK!
From: Matthew Briggs [mailto:mbriggs@renttrack.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:33 PM
To: Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us>; Dan Gallus <dan.gallus@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: 1973
Ms. Oakden,
Hope this message finds you well. We wanted to check-in on the status of our revisions and
next steps as we have not heard back? Following our meeting with the commission, we were
able to revise our plans to address many of the concerns raised. I believe we eliminated 3 of
the 4 requested variances? We shortened the proposed garage by 2', bringing us less than the
15' and eliminating the line of sight issue.
On a separate, but important note of clarification, I found these pictures of 1973 Fagerness
before and after their recent remodel. The pictures seem to show that the garage remained
the same distance from the roadway. However, there is no question that they added
hardscape, built a 3 season porch, covered balcony, and even bumped out their living space
closer to the road. My point here is that our proposed remodel is still significantly farther
back from the roadway than our neighbor's recent remodel and we are within our hardscape
allowance.
I have now spoken with every neighbor on the point and they are all in support of our
project. Many have mentioned that this will be a nice addition as its similar to 1973 and
consistent with the neighborhood. In hindsight, we should have left our old garage where it
was. I just hope this does not prohibit us from the enjoyment and use of our property.
Let me know. Matt & Alissa Briggs
1973 OLD
1973 New
Matthew Briggs
CEO/FOUNDER
t. 866.841.9090
d. 651.583.7413
e. mbriggs@renttrack.com
Co
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
La
k
e
s
h
o
r
e
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
l
i
n
e
-
b
y
S
t
a
f
f
20.73
f
t
Sc
h
u
g
e
l
3D
C
o
n
c
e
p tu
a
l
I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
1
9
10
-
2
2
-
1
9
Fa
g
e
r
n
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
#1
9
8
5
TH
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
EL
E
V
-
9
4
9
.
3
LAKE
MINNETONKA
TOP NUT HYD
ELEV = 933.80
EL
E
V
-
9
3
7
.
5
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1
9
8
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1987
EXISTING HOUSE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
PO
R
C
H
SAN MH
FA
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
LAKE
MINNETONKA
3
#1
9
8
5
TH
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
EL
E
V
-
9
4
9
.
3
LAKE
MINNETONKA
TOP NUT HYD
ELEV = 933.80
EL
E
V
-
9
3
7
.
5
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1
9
8
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
#1987
EXISTING HOUSE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
PO
R
C
H
SAN MH
FA
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
LAKE
MINNETONKA
3
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
24
.
0
23
.
0
15
.
0
19
.
0
4.0
18
.
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
(651) 764-9521
RED WING, MN 55066
30692 HIGHWAY 58 BLVD
SURVEYORSPLANNERSENGINEERS
RIDGELINE
G R O U P
AUGUST 24, 2020 42302
MARK A SCHOENFELDER
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
PERMIT SET DATE:
REVISION :
PRINTED:
MAS
MAS
C1.0
CERTIFICATE
BASIS OF DRAWING FILE:
DATE OF SURVEY:
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
VERTICAL DATUM:
ADDITIONAL FILE INFORMATION:
08-14-2020
HENNEPIN COUNTY
NAD83(2011) REF: VRS
NAVD88 REF: VRS
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
O
A
D
OR
O
N
O
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
620019
%EN&+0AR.ELEVA7ION
TOP NUT HYDRANT NEAR SOUTHWESTERLY LOT LINE
BENCHMARK
+ARD&OVERSU00ARY
Stormwater Quality Overlay District:Tier 1
Allowable Lot Coverage:25%
Allowable Coverage Area: 4,336 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Area:4,295 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Percentage:24.76%
O:NERIN)OR0A7ION
MATTHEW & ALISSA BRIGGS
1411 SCHOOL HOUSE RD
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108
PAR&ELID
18-117-23-14-0004
08/19/20
PROPER7YDES&RIP7ION
Lot 3, Fagerness; and the accretions to said lot lying between the northwesterly extensions to the
shoreline of Lake Minnetonka of the northeasterly and the southwesterly line of said lot, and the accretions
to said lot lying between the southeasterly extension to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka of the
northeasterly line and of the southwesterly line of said lot and southeasterly of the southeasterly line of
Under the Linden Avenue, as dedicated in said plat, which southeastelry line is 40 feet southeasterly, as
measured at right angles, from the southeasterly line of said lot.
LO7AREA
17,345 +/- Square Feet
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
+ARD&OVERSU00ARY
Stormwater Quality Overlay District:Tier 1
Allowable Lot Coverage:25%
Allowable Coverage Area: 4,336 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Area:3,942 Sq Ft
Proposed Hardcover Percentage:22.72%
Denotes an Iron Monument Found
with a Plastic Cap Stamped 42302 (or Otherwise Noted)
Denotes a 3/4 Inch x 15 Inch Iron Pipe Set
LEGEND
08/24/20 8/28/20
OF SURVEY
LOT 3, FAGERNESS and ADJOINING ACCRETIONS
HENNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Denotes Keynote for Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Hennepin Flight date: January 4, 2019
https://oblique.sanborn.com/Hennepin/?ll=44.942348,-93.627259&zoom=19
Hennepin Flight date: January 4, 2019
https://oblique.sanborn.com/Hennepin/?ll=44.942228,-93.627315&zoom=20
Hennepin Flight date: January 4, 2019
https://oblique.sanborn.com/Hennepin/?ll=44.942276,-93.627358&zoom=20
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
BR
I
G
G
S
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
D
WA
Y
Z
A
T
A
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
8/18/2020
A1.1
EXTERIOR
RENDERING
DA
N
G
A
L
L
U
S
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
BR
I
G
G
S
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
D
WA
Y
Z
A
T
A
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
8/18/2020
A1.2
EXETERIOR
RENDERING
DA
N
G
A
L
L
U
S
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
BR
I
G
G
S
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
D
WA
Y
Z
A
T
A
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
8/18/2020
A1.3
EXTERIOR
RENDERING
DA
N
G
A
L
L
U
S
SS SS
SSSS
33 00 66 88
SS TT LL
EE NN TT RR YY
DD OO OO RR
RR OO
33 ''--22 ½½""
XX
66 ''--11 00 ½½""
((VV EE RR II FF YY
WW //
SS UU PP PP LL II EE RR ))
RREE--LLOOCCAATTEEDD DDIINNNNIINNGG WWIINNOODDWW
VVEERRIIFFYY RROO WW// EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
99 ''--00 ""
XX
88 ''--00 ""
OO HH
DD OO OO RR
PP RR OO VV II DD EE
OO UU TT LL EE TT
FF OO RR
OO PP EE NN EE RR
WW //((22 ))
RR EE MM OO TT EE SS
VV EE RR II FF YY
SS TT YY LL EE
&&
WW II NN DD OO WW SS ,,
99 00
MM PP HH
WW II NN DD
RR EE SS II SS TT AA NN TT
22666688
22 88 66 88
22666688
33226688 PPDD
22 66 66 88
UU PP
22 33 ''--00 ""
44 ''
44 66 ''
11 99 ''--00 ""
((VV EE RR II FF YY ))
1155''--00""1199''--00""
2244'' ((AADDDDIITTIIOONN))2266''
6666'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
1111''--00""55''--66""99''--66"" ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
22 77 ''--00 ""
((AA DD DD II TT II OO NN ))
GGAARRAAGGEE
BBEEDDRROOOOMM
WWIICCBBAATTHH
EEXX BBEEDDRROOOOMM
HHAALLLL
SSTTOORRAAGGEE
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
BR
I
G
G
S
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
D
WA
Y
Z
A
T
A
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
8/18/2020
A2.0
LOWER LEVEL
ADDITION
DA
N
G
A
L
L
U
S
1 1 2 2 '' P P A A T T I I O O B B I I --F F O O L L D D
E E X X I I S S T T I I N N G G
E E X X I I S S T T I I N N G G
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
EEXXIISSTTIINNGG
GGAASS FFIIRREEPPLLAACCEE
1 1 8 8 ''
2244'' ((AADDDDIITTIIOONN))4422'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
6666'' ((VVEERRIIFFYY))
2 2 3 3 ''--0 0 ""
4 4 ''
4 4 6 6 ''
1 1 9 9 ''--0 0 "" ((V V E E R R I I F F Y Y ))
2 2 7 7 ''--0 0 "" ((A A D D D D I I T T I I O O N N ))
1155''--00""1199''--00""
1177''--00""77''--00""
V V A A U U L L T T
M M A A X X
V V A A U U L L T T
M M A A X X
CCOOVV PPOORRCCHHEEXX DDIINNIINNGG
BBAALLCCOONNYY
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design & Planning
Serving Rochester and Southern
Minnesota
1647 16th Ave. NW Rochester MN
55901
PROJECT #:
DWN/CHK BY:
PRELIM DATE:
BID SET DATE:
FINAL DATE:
PRINTED:
CCH
AUG 12, 2020
20198
BR
I
G
G
S
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
19
8
5
F
A
G
E
R
N
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
R
D
WA
Y
Z
A
T
A
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
8/18/2020
A3.0
MAIN LEVEL
ADDITION
DA
N
G
A
L
L
U
S
1985 Fagerness Point Road
Mark Schoenfelder, PE, LS August 28, 2020
House Porch Covered Deck Patio
Concrete Drive within 75’ of Lake (To be Removed)
Sidewalk/Stairs (To be Removed)
30’x10’/8’x2’
37’x4’ 36.5’x13.5’
18.8’x8’/8’x8’÷2
Garden Shed 8’x7.3’ 58
493 148
182 316
Stairs to Lake 32’x4’ 126
Irregular shape 661
40.3’x22.1’/18.4’x20.2’ 1,263
4,295
Retaining Walls not within 75’ of Lake 6.5’x1’/32.8’x1’ 39
4,334
39
17,345
24.76
Parking Pad 540 27’x20’
New Building Addition (To be Added) 24’x23’/9’x4’/10’x8.6’ 674
New Concrete Driveway (To be Added) 12.7’x18’ 229 New Stairs and Sidewalk (To be Added) 22’x4’ 88
Retaining Walls 174 42.3’x1’/52.5’x1’/78.8’x1’
Concrete Driveway (To be Removed) 20 13.5’x1’/13.5’x1’÷2
New Concrete Drive within 75’ of Lake (To be Added) 23 18’x0.5’/18’x1.5’÷2
From:Matthew Briggs
To:Laura Oakden
Cc:Dan Gallus; Alissa Briggs
Subject:LA 20-00057 1985 Fagerness Addition
Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 10:08:12 AM
Attachments:Response to Staff Response FNL.docx
Briggs Schedule C.pdf
Ms. Oakden,
We are in receipt of your application summary and staff recommendation. While we are
disappointed with the staff’s initial denial recommendation, we believe that you have
stipulated many of the facts arbitrarily. In preparation for the planning commission meeting
this evening, we put together the attached summary and schedule C. We disagree with the
practical difficulty analysis, as we have moved to Minnesota full-time to help care for my
wife’s father, a disabled veteran. We are building an accessible ground floor bedroom and
bathroom with widened doors and a zero-entry shower to accommodate his care.
As to the requested variances, our neighbors have been granted similar variances that we are
requesting. We have received three letters of support which we have provided. Our proposed
addition is within the hardscape limit and the majority of construction is built over our existing
driveway. We have some flexibility on the setback which we can discuss. We need to repair a
defective retaining wall. There is no line of sight issue with either neighbor. We have adequate
and more parking than any neighbor. The average driveway width on Fagerness Point is 18'
not 8' as evidenced in Schedule C. We are building in harmony with the neighborhood with a
nearly identical design to 1973 Fagerness. Not granting similar variances for our property,
limits our practical use and enjoyment of the property, and puts us at an economic
disadvantage, and potentially lowered property value relative to our neighbors.
Best, Matt and Alissa Briggs
Matthew Briggs
CEO/FOUNDER
t. 866.841.9090
d. 651.583.7413
e. mbriggs@renttrack.com
September 21, 2020
Attn: Ms. Laura Oakden
Via EMAIL
Subject: LA20-000057, 1985 Fagerness Point Road, Addition
Ms. Oakden,
We are in receipt of your application summary and staff recommendation. While we are
disappointed with the staff’s initial denial recommendation, we believe that you have stipulated
many of the facts arbitrarily.
We disagree with the practical difficulty analysis, as we have moved to Minnesota full-time to
help care for my wife’s father, a disabled veteran. We are building an accessible ground floor
bedroom and bathroom with widened doors and a zero-entry shower to accommodate his care.
We have put together a brief summary including evidence that the variances we are asking for
are consistent with the neighborhood.
Background
We purchased our property in 2010 to build our lake home. At the time we only had two young
children and only planned on spending the summers in Minnesota. We built the home
accordingly, with a minimal driveway and undersized garage relative to our neighborhood and
all three bedrooms on the top floor.
We have since relocated to Minnesota full-time to help care for my wife’s father, who is a
disabled veteran. Our family has grown and we had a third child. The current basement bedroom
and bathroom will not accommodate my Father in Law’s disability. We plan to make the
basement bedroom and bathroom accommodate his disability with widened doors and zero
clearance shower.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The practical difficulty for the variances is to accommodate my wife’s father’s disability.
Street Yard Set Back (78-350)
Street Yard Setback (78-350) The code required all principle buildings be 30’ from the street
property line on lakeshore lots. The home currently conforms to this setback. The applicant is
requesting a 14’ setback to allow for a garage addition.
Response: When we acquired the home, it had a detached garage with porch that was within 10’
feet of the roadway and well beyond what we are proposing in this plan. This is consistent with
the neighborhood, where our neighbors have garages built substantially within 30’ feet of the
road. Many are actually built within 5’ of the road in the utility easement.
Recently, our neighbor at 1973 Fagerness, completed a garage and porch remodel which the City
approved. Our proposed design is virtually identical to 1973, albeit we are more in line with the
current regulations as our proposed structure would be much further from the street.
Additionally, the driveway at 1973 is over 18’ wide.
Average Lakeshore Setbacks (78-1279) No principal or accessory building shall be located
closer to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline of
existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; This does not apply to patios and other accessory
structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, and/or stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes,
flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified
lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line
connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the immediately adjacent
lakeshore lots.
A corner of the proposed addition and stair is shown to be lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback.
Solution: We can accommodate this by moving from 14’ to 15’ to meet this requirement.
Driveways, in general. (78-1681) All driveways shall comply with the following minimum
dimensional standards: Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a width equivalent
to the width of all overhead doors extending 15 feet out from the garage doors. Due to the
proposed setback of 14 feet, the driveway will extend 14 feet from the garage door, 15’ is
required.
Solution: We can move this to 15’ to accommodate.
Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (78-1282) A driveway no wider than eight feet is
permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or
access to a public or private road. The applicant is proposing an 18’ wide driveway within the
75’ lakeyard where only an 8’ wide driveway is permitted.
Response: See schedule C. We measured all driveways on Fagerness Point Road, starting at
1973 Fagerness. The average driveway width was 18’+. So there is neighborhood precedent for
this variance.
Driveway Width:
1987 Fagerness: 33’ Driveway -- 19’ Garage Concrete and 14’ Driveway Asphalt. 33’ total.
1981 Fagerness: 20’ Driveway Asphalt
1975 Fagerness: 18’ Garage Concrete
1971 Fagerness: 20’ Driveway Gravel
1973 Fagerness: 20’ Driveway Concrete
Solution: We proposed 18’, which is the average on Fagerness Point.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the
Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety
and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of
fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The
Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal
provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical
difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and
shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to
direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter.
The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this
chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council
may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
requested rear yard setback, average lakeshore setbacks, driveway standard and hardcover within
the 75’ of the lakeyard are not in harmony with the Ordinances as the proposed addition would
limit the lake sightline for neighbors and create addition massing close to the right of way. The
number of variances requests suggest that the site does not support the proposal.
Response: Our proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood and virtually identical to the
new construction at 1973 Fagerness. There is no impact of line of site for either neighbor. Our
immediate neighbor, Ms. Hartung, wrote a letter of recommendation supporting our proposed
project. We understand that the Millers are in support of it as well and will be attending the
planning meeting. We have mature trees and arbs that screen the property on both sides. Even
without the shrubs, does not impact neighbors views.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for
an addition to an existing single family home in a residential zone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the official controls; The request to build a home addition within the street yard setback,
average lakeshore setback, new hardcover in the 75’ lakeyard and not meeting driveway
standards does not appear to be reasonable as the current home has adequate use of the lot.
Response: This is consistent use with neighborhood lots who have been granted similar
variances. The commission appears to be acting arbitrarily with respect to our plans given that
not a single other property in our neighborhood conforms to the stated standards.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The
owner’s desire to enclose the existing garage to make more living space and then add a new
garage within the street yard and average lakeshore setback to the home is a condition created by
the landowner and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The setback variances
from the street yard and average lakeshore setback resulting from a building addition may
adversely alter the character of the area. The variances for the driveway dimensions and new
driveway hardcover in the 75’ lake yard may limit the parking ability for the homeowner and
may adversely impact the character of the neighborhood.
Response: The proposed design softens the vertical nature of our home. It increases the curb
appeal and character of the home that is consistent with the neighborhood, see 1973 Fagerness.
All neighbors agree that the new design provides depth and softens the vertical nature of the
property. Not permitting the proposed construction actually hurts both the neighborhood and the
value of our home; as the home would be substantially different and less desirable than the other
homes in the neighborhood.
As to parking, the current garage/storage limits the inside parking spaces which creates the
requirement of parking in driveway, and across road parking spot, and is especially difficult for
guests in the winter months. With the addition, we will be able to park our two cars inside the
garage (currently only one fits), while still accommodating 5 guests in the driveway and parking
spot, which is more parking than any neighbor.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not alone been a factor in the variance approval determination.
Response: Economic factors apply, in that we can provide care for my Father in Law.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.
This condition is not applicable.
Response: We own a Tesla and will be installing Tesla Solar on the porch roof which has the
best sunlight rating on our property. We will be submitting a design for this separately.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family home is an allowed use in the LR-1C
District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property is substandard in size and width and
has lake frontage on either side. The immediate neighbors have similar challenges. The applicant
was able to construct a home conforming to all setbacks in 2009.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. There are other properties in the neighborhood with substandard size and
width with double frontage to the lake, which are not unique conditions affecting only this
property. The proposed addition would require street yard and average lakeshore setback
variances which other neighboring properties have met.
Response: Disagree with this as neighbor properties require similar variances.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that their family has grown and
need additional living space within the home. The property was built to meeting setback
requirements, the property owner currently has use and enjoyment of the property currently.
Response: The house does not meet our requirement to care for my disabled father in law.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant
states this to be true. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission to discuss the parking
limitations for the property by shrinking the current driveway and parking availability.
Response: Our plan accommodates covered parking of two vehicle and 5 vehicles in driveway
and parking spot. We can accommodate more than any neighbor.
1987 Fagerness: Driveway & Garage Only
1981 Fagerness: Garage, 3 cars driveway 2 cars parking spot
1975 Fagerness: Garage, 2 cars parking spot
1971 Fagerness: Garage, 2 cars driveway and 2 cars parking spot
1973 Fagerness: Garage, 2 cars driveway and 2 cars parking spot
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The property owner built the principle
building to meet all setbacks in 2009. The addition to the home is not necessary to alleviate a
practical difficulty and would merely serve as a convenience to the Owner.
Response: Does not accommodate our requirement to care for my disabled Father in Law.
The Commission may recommend, or Council may impose conditions in granting of
variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed
beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Other Factors:
We plan to remove an existing structurally engineered retaining wall and steps to our front door
that have settled over the years and caused water issues and settling. The new retaining wall and
steps would be part of a frost depth foundation to eliminate any future settling. Pictures of the
existing steps and retaining wall are attached.
In summary, we have practical difficulty. We are building this addition, over our existing
driveway. We are under our allowable hardscape. All neighbors have been granted variances as
evidenced in the proposal. Not granting similar variances for our property will put us at an
disadvantage to property values of our neighbors.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. LA20-000057 MICHAEL GALLUS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 1985 FAGERNESS POINT
ROAD, VARIANCES. STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN.
Matthew Briggs, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Oakden noted Staff recommends denial as the
Applicant has not met standards for Practical Difficulty.
Mr. Matthew Briggs, 1985 Fagerness Point Road, homeowner, noted he also had Dan Gallus, the original
builder of the home who is working with the current homeowner. He said he appreciates the Staff’s input
and he’s only had a few days to respond; he noted the main driver behind the Practical Difficulty is that
they built the home 10 years ago with two kids and no father-in-law. Since then they have three kids and
their father-in-law is now a disabled veteran. They relocated from California to Minnesota and the reason
they’re building it is because it is consistent with the neighborhood and it also meets a need for their
family, noting they have three bedrooms on the top floor of the property (built in 2010). He reported they
have three children so their boys share a room and they are building a room downstairs to accommodate a
father-in-law who will be moving in with them so they can provide him care. Mr. Briggs said they’d be
widening the garage, the doors, making it accessible to their father-in-law, including the bedroom and
bathroom space to accommodate him. He said that is the main driving force, however, they also want to
point out the neighborhood and the variances they’re asking for are consistent with the neighborhood. He
noted they tried to be very mindful of that in building the home, stating a home was built at 1973
Fagerness which is the identical design to their home. His understanding is that there were multiple
variances given, they have a 20-foot wide driveway and are much closer to the street than what Mr.
Briggs is proposing, and that was recently completed. He noted some other examples, regarding the
design of his original home and said when looking at the property it is very vertical and feels very tall,
almost three stories. He said what they’re proposing softens those lines of the home and by his
understanding they’ve received unanimous support in building it from their direct neighbors as well as
three other neighbors (information which has been provided). Mr. Briggs said he doesn’t know if they
necessarily need all the variances they applied for; for example, in the corner, one foot of the stairway is
encroaching, and he noted they can move that back. He stated there are no sight-line issues with either
neighbor. Regarding parking, they will actually increase their parking, noting that currently one car can be
parked in their garage and this will allow two cars in the garage, two cars in the driveway and three cars
in their parking spot, which is more parking than any of their neighbors. Mr. Briggs said the Practical
Difficulty standpoint is important, as the only place they can build a bedroom that would be accessible,
while still accommodating their three children, is where it is proposed. He noted they’re willing to be
flexible and what is most important is that they’re able to accommodate their father-in-law, care for him
and still give their children their own bedrooms, while still meeting the neighborhood design.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Chair Ressler noted Mr. Briggs mentioned one thing that might be a friendly amendment is the average
lakeshore setback and it appears that the line goes further than what was understood by the Applicant and
asked Ms. Oakden if that is correct.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Oakden replied when the application was first submitted, this line (noted onscreen), was not shown
on the Survey and is something Staff required as part of the review. Once applied, Staff identified that
the average lakeshore setback variance would be required and was published as such. If the Applicant
wishes to meet the setback, the entire corner would need to be removed or behind the line.
Chair Ressler asked if that is inclusive of stairs.
Ms. Oakden responded yes, inclusive of stairs as they’d only allow up to 42 inches to encroach, so if the
stairs rise over 42 inches above existing grade, it is seen as an encroachment. She showed onscreen that
the stairs rise relatively steeply, so the homeowner would have to provide elevations and show that they
meet the average lakeshore setback in any amended plans they may wish to submit.
Chair Ressler asked how the stairs are currently.
Ms. Oakden showed a current elevation onscreen, noting a relatively flat driveway and that the stairs go
up in a curved fashion, noting she doesn’t have elevation measurements on the stairs, but they would
measure from existing grade per the survey.
Chair Ressler said it looks like the current sidewalk and steps are encroaching slightly on the average
lakeshore setback.
Ms. Oakden responded, potentially, if they rise 42 inches above existing grade. She said they’re allowed
to have things within the average lakeshore setback if they’re low to the ground (under 42 inches).
However anything above 42 inches over existing grade triggers the need for a variance and is seen as an
encroachment.
Chair Ressler said that’s interesting, whether hardcover or not.
Ms. Oakden said they’re allowed to put hardcover in the average lakeshore setback.
Gettman asked if there are any pictures of 1973 Fagerness Point Road, the home they’re trying to mirror.
Ms. Oakden pulled the picture up onscreen and noted it had approved variances in 2019, and they
reconstructed an existing garage, changed the shape of it slightly, and she believes they moved it back off
the street farther and made it slightly wider to make it more conforming and improved some of the
setbacks.
Gettman asked if there are any other similar lots, where regardless of the improvement they are still
encroaching on the setback.
Ms. Oakden replied most of the lots along Fagerness have encroachments, and some received variances,
but are all variances based on existing conditions or existing structures. She clarified they are not creating
new encroachments but amending existing buildings.
Chair Ressler noted the term they refer to often is building like-kind and improving positions, and that
jumps out at him on this.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gettman said he is struggling because there appear to be a number of neighbors who, from whatever
timeframe or purpose, have been allowed to encroach on that setback.
Kirchner said he struggles to encroach further or even in this case to break into that envelope of
encroaching into a setback. While he understands there are others in the neighborhood and nearby, he
noted it is not a like-kind improvement but a new construction addition to the home and he doesn’t
believe he can support it.
Erickson stated they’ve been cautioned about designing someone’s project for them, but noted it’s so
basic, and asked if it’s correct if the ordinance looks for a 15-foot driveway and the Applicant is
requesting a 14-foot driveway to allow the construction of a new 24-foot deep addition. He asked if it
was a 23-foot addition, that the driveway requirement would be met.
Ms. Oakden answered that is correct, for driveway standards, the City requires a 15-foot space of
driveway equal to the width of the garage doors, which is one of the applicable variances for this
application. She noted if they made it 15-feet, that variance would then be resolved, but it would not
resolve the street-yard setback variance. Depending on how that changes as it pertains to average
lakeshore setback, she is not sure if one foot would resolve that setback, they’d need to see how it would
be applied.
Chair Ressler asked if average lakeshore setback would still be a concern.
Ms. Oakden said the homeowner would have to show it, she’s not sure if one foot would resolve that
setback encroachment.
Chair Ressler commented that he thinks it can be done by changing it and not getting into the average
lakeshore setback, noting it looks like it’s a worsening of a condition looking at the current steps versus
the proposed steps. He stated he doesn’t think he’s in favor of it as it’s proposed.
Libby agreed with Chair Ressler, noting he’s trying very hard to get his head around why Staff would’ve
denied this based on a Practical Difficulty, as he is still trying to look for it. He said he listened to a
relatively articulate presentation by the homeowner, who addressed somewhat sensitive and familiar
issues that are dear to his heart (having to do with Veterans). However, he still cannot find the Practical
Difficulty and tends to agree with Staff and he cannot support it.
Gettman asked to confirm regarding the required setback, if Staff could confirm the setback Erickson
referred to, if it’s 15 feet or 30 feet.
Ms. Oakden replied it is both, noting it is 2 variances: one is a 30 foot building setback for the street-yard,
and one is a 15 foot driveway standard from the garage doors.
Gettman noted there is a third variance which is the lakeshore setback.
Ms. Oakden responded yes, the average lakeshore setback. She said there is a fourth variance for a wide
driveway in the 75, where they only allow 8 feet so they’d need a variance to allow the construction of a
wider driveway. She clarified that as proposed, the Application would trigger four variances.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Chair Ressler shared there had been discussion on variances for driveways for different reasons, he
doesn’t really have a problem with the driveway as proposed, but he’s not thrilled about the other three.
He noted he thinks there are ways to make the project still conform.
Libby noted there was conversation about adjacent and surrounding properties and some standards that
were set by that. He said they need to be very careful because they really don’t have any empirical data
about those setbacks and aren’t working with real dimensions, noting it’s really opinion, hearsay and
conjecture and they can’t advise Council based on those standards. He said that’s another reason he has
compunction to support this.
Chair Ressler said, that is not a Practical Difficulty, and one thing the Commission considers is does it
conform to the spirit and the scope of the neighborhood; he noted it is up for debate but doesn’t think it’s
part of their discussion.
Libby moved, Kirchner seconded, to deny LA20-000057, 1985 Fagerness Point Road Variances.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 08/19/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/30/2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/29/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden
Planner
Date: September 21, 2020
Subject: LA20-000057, Michael Gallus Construction Inc, 1985 Fagerness Point Road,
Variance, Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is looking to convert to existing garage into more living space for the home. They
are proposing to construct a new garage addition to the home with porch above. The new
addition will be within the street yard and the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is also
widening the driveway to accommodate the new garage and requesting new hardcover within
the 75’ lakeyard setback for the new driveway space.
Practical Difficulties Analysis (For Variance Applications Only)
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified that there are other properties in
the neighborhood with very close garages to the road as a practical difficulty supporting the
requested variance. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding
Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony
regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the project
does not meet practical difficulty standards. The owner currently has reasonable use for the
property with an existing single family home built in 2009. The addition would be out of
convenience.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Building Setbacks:
DISTRICT LR-1C Required Existing Proposed
Street 30’ 38’ 14’
Side (South) 7.5’ 15.8’ No Building Change
Side (North) 7.5’ 11’ No Building Change
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances for average lakeshore setback,
street yard setback, distance between a garage door and property line and a wider driveway
than is permitted within the 75’ lakeyard. Variances would allow for an addition and a new
driveway.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. The applicant has not
met standards for practical difficulty.
LA20-000057
September 21, 2020
Page 2 of 5
Lakeshore (West) 75’ 104’ No Building Change
Lakeshore (East) 75’ 88’ No Building Change
Average Lakeshore (West) No Change
Average Lakeshore (East) New Proposed Addition -Not Met
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
DISTRICT LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 17,345 s.f. (0.39 acre) 75’ @ 75’ / 75’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
17,345 s.f. (0.39 acre) Allowed: 3,469 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,493 s.f. (14 %)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 17,345 s.f. . 4,336.25 s.f.
(25 %)
3,981 s.f.
(22.7 %)
879
w/in
75’
4,334 s.f.
(24.7%)
882
w/in
75’
Applicable Regulations:
Street Yard Setback (78-350) The code required all principle buildings be 30’ from the street
property line on lakeshore lots. The home currently conforms to this setback.
The applicant is requesting a 14’ setback to allow for a garage addition.
Average Lakeshore Setbacks (78-1279) No principal or accessory building shall be located
closer to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline
of existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; This does not apply to patios and other
accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, and/or stairways, lifts, landings,
lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only
to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall
be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the
immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.
A corner of the proposed addition and stair is shown to be lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback.
Driveways, in general. (78-1681) All driveways shall comply with the following minimum
dimensional standards: Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a width
equivalent to the width of all overhead doors extending 15 feet out from the garage doors.
Due to the proposed setback of 14 feet, the driveway will extend 14 feet from the garage door,
15’ is required.
Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (78-1282) A driveway no wider than eight feet is
LA20-000057
September 21, 2020
Page 3 of 5
permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on
or access to a public or private road.
The applicant is proposing an 18’ wide driveway within the 75’ lakeyard where only an 8’ wide
driveway is permitted.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
requested rear yard setback, average lakeshore setbacks, driveway standard and
hardcover within the 75’ of the lakeyard are not in harmony with the Ordinances as the
proposed addition would limit the lake sightline for neighbors and create addition
massing close to the right of way. The number of variances requests suggest that the
site does not support the proposal.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a
permit for an addition to an existing single family home in a residential zone is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to build a home addition within
the street yard setback, average lakeshore setback, new hardcover in the 75’
lakeyard and not meeting driveway standards does not appear to be reasonable
as the current home has adequate use of the lot.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The owner’s desire to enclose the existing garage to make more living space and
then add a new garage within the street yard and average lakeshore setback to
the home is a condition created by the landowner and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The setback
variances from the street yard and average lakeshore setback resulting from a
building addition may adversely alter the character of the area. The variances
for the driveway dimensions and new driveway hardcover in the 75’ lake yard
may limit the parking ability for the homeowner and may adversely impact the
character of the neighborhood.
LA20-000057
September 21, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not alone been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family home is an allowed use in the
LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property is substandard in size and
width and has lake frontage on either side. The immediate neighbors have similar
challenges. The applicant was able to construct a home conforming to all setbacks in
2009.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. There are other properties in the neighborhood with substandard
size and width with double frontage to the lake, which are not unique conditions
affecting only this property. The proposed addition would require street yard and
average lakeshore setback variances which other neighboring properties have met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that their family has
grown and need additional living space within the home. The property was built to
meeting setback requirements, the property owner currently has use and enjoyment of
the property currently.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant
states this to be true. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission to discuss the
parking limitations for the property by shrinking the current driveway and parking
availability.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The property owner built the principle
building to meet all setbacks in 2009. The addition to the home is not necessary to
alleviate a practical difficulty and would merely serve as a convenience to the Owner.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
Two letters of support for the application were submitted to city hall. (See Exhibit F)
Issues for Consideration
LA20-000057
September 21, 2020
Page 5 of 5
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Planning Commission should discuss the parking limitations for the property by shrinking
the current driveway and parking availability.
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. The applicant has not met practical
difficulty standards.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey and Images
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Neighbor Submitted Letters
Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. Consider a proposed concept plan for a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD).
2. Background. The applicants have submitted a concept plan to develop the 3.69 acre parcel at the
NW corner of Wayzata Blvd and Willow Drive, south of Kelley Parkway. The plan presented to
the City Council is revised and reflects comments made by the Planning Commission. The
original plan is attached as Exhibit F. The revised plans are attached as Exhibit A. The applicant
has also prepared a narrative describing their project, attached as Exhibit B.
The developer, David Weekly Homes, proposes a development similar to the Stonebay project
across Kelley Parkway. The townhome portion of Stonebay is illustrated in Exhibit G for
comparison. This project is lower than the density prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan,
currently guided for 20 units per acre. A project at this lower density (9.48 units per acre) will
require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Comprehensive Plan Impact. The change in land use guidance will impact the City’s density and
housing option calculations:
With no change, calculated density is 3.925. Amending the plan to Urban Medium density (10-
25 units per acre) will drop the calculated density to 3.760. The growth deficit of 3 units can be
accommodated by programming planned 2031 growth to the 2021 period.
However, the plan proposed requires an amendment to urban medium (3-10 units per acre),
creating housing opportunity deficits in both the 2021 and 2031. While the city’s overall density
A 3.00 609 394 154
1 232 911 3.925 34 13 795
*With Amend #3 Orchard Hill added
2 NC 10 36 3.760
MUSA totals 232 874 3.760 -3 13 NC
3 NC 3 11 3.655
MUSA totals 232 849 3.655 -10 -9 733
B Notes
Willow/ Wayzata concept plan
Net
Residential
Acres (NRA)
Lowest
Guided
Density
Predicted # of
units
Calculated
City Density
2021-2030
Growth
Difference
(deficit)
2031-2040
Growth
Difference
(deficit)
No Change (Current Comprehensive
Plan Calculations)
"Affordable
Housing"
Acre units
Requirements
"Affordable Housing" Acre Units are the number of acres guided for densities at 8 units/ acre or more x 8.
Growth difference is the number of units above (or below) the projected growth for 2021-2030 and 2031-2040
Predicted Density, Based on Net Density Table 3B-4, 2040 CMP
Calculated Density is density of all sewered areas in Orono, must be above 3.0
Reduce density to Urban Medium High
(10-20 u/a)
Reduce density to Urban Medium (3-10
u/a)
Item No.: 17 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000052 – Mark Rausch o/b/o University of St. Thomas and
David Weekly Homes, NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd., Concept Plan
Review
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
stays above the 3.0 threshold, these housing opportunity deficits require the city to identify other
housing opportunities by increasing the density of other areas currently planned to be served by
sewer, or extending the MUSA into areas not served by sewer. The Met Council looks only at the
lowest guided density for housing opportunity calculations.
The Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit C provides analysis on the project.
This report will summarize the key points. The project is a 35 unit townhome development, in
nine 3-5 unit buildings, and will be served by a single looped private road through the
development. The fronts of the building are situated toward an internal open space, or Kelley
Parkway. A sidewalk network will connect the front doors of the buildings to sidewalks on the
periphery to the development. A central area with a tot lot serves as the private recreation area.
Road access will come off Kelley Parkway. The entire development will be served by sanitary
sewer and municipal water. The main issue for staff and the Commission was exterior setbacks,
described in the section below. Internal setbacks to the roads are consistent with Council practice
of 20 feet minimum between the building and the curb line, allowing vehicle parking without
extending into the street. The plans provide for 10 feet between buildings.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 21st, the Planning Commission
reviewed the project. Discussion during the PC meeting primarily focused on the external
setbacks and the recreational space.
External Setbacks. The members of the Commission were concerned that the original proposal
featured a significant reduction in setbacks from the exterior streets; 50- feet is required and 13.7’
was proposed off of Willow and Kelley, and 30 feet off of Wayzata. The revised plans provides
much greater separation from the exterior streets, showing 36 feet from Willow and Kelley,
though a portion of decks or patios appear to encroach with the given level of detail. The setback
off of Wayzata Blvd is 50 feet. The setback proposed off of Kelley Parkway is similar to
Stonebays setbacks off of that street.
Tot lot. The tot lot was relocated from a spot near Kelley Parkway to a location interior to the
neighborhood.
4. Public Comment. No comments for or against have been received.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff requests Council feedback on the following:
a. Reduction in density
b. General layout/ land use
c. Reduced setbacks.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should provide feedback.
Exhibits
A. Revised concept plan
B. Updated Narrative
C. Planning Commission staff report
D. Planning Commission minutes -draft
E. Building Plans
F. Original concept site plan
G. Stonebay comparison
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
H. Staff comments
References
Planning Commission Exhibits 9-21-2020
City Council Minutes 12/10/18
PC Staff Report & Exhibits 11/19/18
1,06
5
L
F
4
3
3
1
3
5
L
F
MONUMENT
SIGN
WROUGHT IRON LOOK
FENCE
5' PUBLIC WALK
PRIVATE
PLAYGROUND
WAYZATA BLVD
WI
L
L
O
W
D
R
N
KELL
E
Y
P
K
W
Y
1-4
24-2719-23
14-18
5-7
11-13
28-31
OUTLOT
OUTLOT
OUTLOT
32
-
3
5
8-10
COMMUNITY OPEN
SPACE (18,220 sf / 11.3%)
4' PRIVATE WALK
SITE DATA
TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 160,851 sf /3.69 AC (PID:3311823110060)
TOTAL TOWNHOMES: 35 UNITS : 9.5 UNITS/GROSS AC
TOTAL ROADWAY LENGTH: 1,200 LF - PRIVATE (24' B-B + PARKING)
CURRENT 2040 FUTURE LAND USE: HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (20-25 UPA)
PROP. LAND USE:URBAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(3-10 UPA)
EXISTING ZONING:RR-1B PUD
PROPOSED ZONING:RPUD
CONCEPT LAYOUT TOWNHOMES
BUILDING SETBACKS (ALL):
Front / Driveway to Private Road Back of Curb: 20 ft
Side to Private Road Back of Curb: 10 ft
Rear Between Buildings: See Plan
Side Between Buildings: 10.0 ft min.
Wayzata Blvd: 50 ft
Willow Drive / Kelly Parkway: 36 ft (small enc. at 34')
West Property line: 30 ft
Building setback to Internal Outlots = 0'
All units are slab on grade without basements
WETLANDS: None assumed per LiDAR topography
DATE: 10-5-2020
733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612.758.3080
612.758.3099
www.alliant-inc.com
MAIN
FAX
ORONO CROSSINGS - CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL - SITE PLAN
ORONO, MINNESOTA
PROPOSED BUILDING OR STOOP/ENTRY
LEGEND
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, BUILDINGS, ETC
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER, DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, PATIOS
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
DECORATIVE FENCING (WROUGHT IRON LOOK) W/ MASONRY
COLUMNS
PRIVATE ROADWAY, DRIVEWAYS, PRIVATE PARKING +
SIDEWALKS (BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC)
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE / PERVIOUS AREA
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE / RECREATIONAL
Concept / Sketch Plan Review October 5, 2020
ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 1 of 5
CONCEPT / SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE
ORONO CROSSINGS
Orono, Minnesota
August 13, 2020
Revised October 6, 2020
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Applicant/Developer/Builder: David Weekley Homes, Aziz Siddiqui
Civil Engineer: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Mark Rausch
Surveyor: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Peter Goers
Landscape Architect: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Mark Kronbeck
SITE INFORMATION
Legal Description (per County records):
OUTLOT A, STONEBAY, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Abstract.
Address: Unassigned per Hennepin County
PID: 3311823110060
Total Acres: Per County Records = 160,851 sf / 3.69 ac
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST
The proposed conceptual development request consists of a multi-family residential subdivision,
consisting of 36 town homes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
The development property has an existing land use identified as “Undeveloped” within the City’s 2040
Land Use Plan. The City’s future land use designation for the parcel is Urban High Density Residential
which has a residential dwelling unit density range of 20-25 units per acre.
The proposed multi-family townhome development plan with 35 units, results in a proposed density of
9.5 units/acre. The density as proposed falls at the high end of the City’s Urban Medium Density
Residential guiding density range of 3-10 units per acre.
ZONING DESIGNATION
The development site is currently zoned (RR-1B PUD) One-Family Residential - Planned Unit
Development District. The proposed project seems to a be a candidate for being rezoned under the City
of Orono’s (RPUD) Residential Planned Unit Development District zoning. The RPUD zoning would
Concept / Sketch Plan Review October 5, 2020
ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 2 of 5
allow for the proposed development of the site and be compatible and consistent with the City’s goals and
objectives for the property.
EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION
The development property is located in the northeast quadrant of the Willow Drive and Wayzata
Boulevard intersection. The property is currently undeveloped with generally no trees and covered by
open grass area. The property is 3.69 acres in size and bound by an existing regional stormwater pond to
the west, Kelley Parkway to the north, Wayzata Boulevard to the south and Willow Drive along the east.
The site is adjacent to available public infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer,
stormwater management and roadways for servicing the proposed development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
It is the applicant’s intent to provide a residential development that will be similar to the adjacent
Stonebay neighborhood. The project includes 35 new multi-family townhomes on individually platted
lots with a private roadway network and building setbacks to the development perimeter as recommended
by the City’s Planning Commission. The lots will be part of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) which
will provide care and maintenance of the private site amenities and private infrastructure. The HOA will
be responsible for all snow removal within the development.
The development has been designed with significant pedestrian connectivity both internally and to the
external trails and walks. The internal walks will be private sidewalks, but the development plan also
proposes a new public sidewalk along Willow Drive. All proposed units have direct pedestrian
connection to the private walkway system which is then ultimately connected to a public walk or trail.
The following is a summary of primary project elements or site features currently proposed:
• 35 townhomes with varied architecture with a similar features to the Cobblestone development.
• Creation of open space including an outdoor recreational area for use by the development
residents.
• Provision of an extensive walkway network within the subdivision providing connectivity of each
unit to internal walks as well as the new public walk and trail adjacent to the site.
• Creation of a new public sidewalk connection along Willow Drive from Kelley Parkway
southerly to Wayzata Boulevard and to the existing trail.
• Enhanced development landscaping with perimeter decorative fencing, masonry columns and
monument signage.
• Provision of supplemental guest parking to ensure adequate parking for guests of the
development residents.
Market
We believe that our offering a nice for sale townhome product that is affordably priced will enable us to
attract first time buyers and families with young children. We also believe we’ll attract divorced parents
with full or part time children.
Concept / Sketch Plan Review October 5, 2020
ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 3 of 5
Architecture
The townhome architecture will follow a theme of Farmhouse, Contemporary Farmhouse elevation styles.
The product will feature 9-feet main floor ceilings and 8-feet 2nd floor ceilings. Consumer choice will
allow a mix of master bedrooms in the front of the home or in the rear of the home depending upon the
home site choice. Stone or masonry accents on the front of the homes will be complimentary to the
specific elevation theme.
On these elevations, we are proposing using the following exterior cladding materials in order to maintain
affordability for our targeted consumers:
- Vinyl Siding – Front, Sides, and Rear
- Hardi or LP Smartside Window/Door Trim – Front and Rear
- Vinyl Window/Door Trim – Sides
- Aluminum Soffit and Fascia
- Stone/Brick Accents – Per Elevations
- Asphalt Shingles
These materials are an affordable maintenance-free solution and provide our consumers with the
maximum value for their investment. To address potential elevation monotony issues, we ensure that the
same elevations are not able to be selected on either side of one another or directly across the street from
one another. We’ll employ a color consultant to create a series of color palettes with pre-selected color
schemes to enhance the elevations, to address color monotony issues, as well as to create an integrated,
diverse, and attractive streetscape.
Development Plan Area
Gross Acreage 3.69 acres
Net Developable Acreage 3.69 acres
Net Density (35 lots) 9.5 units per acre
Typical Unit/Home Dimensions
Width 22’ min.
Depth 53’ min.
Setbacks as Proposed in Concept
Primary Building to Wayzata Blvd 50’ min.
Primary Building to Willow Drive 36’ min.
Primary Building to Kelley Parkway 36’ min.*
*(Small building corner encroachment to 34’ min.)
Primary Building to West Property Boundary 30’ min.
Primary Building to Internal Lot Line or Outlot 0’ min.
Primary Building to Private Road or Parking 10’ min.
Other Plan Details Proposed in Concept
Minimum Primary Building Separation 10’ min
Minimum Centerline Driveway Length 20’ min.
Private Roadway Width 24’ wide back of curb-back of
curb
Private Parking Stalls 9’ x 20’
Concept / Sketch Plan Review October 5, 2020
ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 4 of 5
Site Access, Pedestrian Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access from public right of way to the proposed development will occur via a proposed road
access to Kelley Parkway.
The development will be providing a 4’ walkway connection to every unit’s front door. The 4’ walks will
then connect to either; a 4’ private walkway network within the development or to a proposed 5’ public
walk along Willow Drive or to an existing public walk on Kelley Parkway.
The development will have ample parking to support the future residents and their guests. The plan as
proposed provides the following parking:
Parking Summary
Off-street Guest 10
Public on-street No parking allowed Kelley Pkwy, Willow Dr or Wayzata Blvd
Frontage
Private Driveway (2/home) 70
Private Garage (2/home) 70
Total Available Parking 150 Stalls (4.3 stalls / unit)
Grading
The existing site area will be re-graded to shape in the proposed roadways, lot configurations, common
area and all required stormwater management storage. The site will be graded to match elevations at the
site perimeter and to capture site drainage as able. The elevation changes necessary to provide drainage
within the site and to maintain maximum walkway and driveway slopes, does mean there will be
situations where some private walkways will require private steps to make connections. The steps will be
provided by means of 7” maximum height risers with railings when more than 1 step is needed.
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
The proposed development would connect to public sanitary sewer and watermain within Kelley Parkway
and extend public utilities within the development under the private roadway. The public utilities would
be contained within an outlot that will be covered by public drainage and utility easement.
Stormwater Management
The development site falls within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management Organization (MCWD)
boundary; therefore, the project will be subject to stormwater management regulations of the MCWD and
the City of Orono.
The site abuts an existing regional stormwater management basin. It is our understanding that the basin
has been designed to accommodate some stormwater management for the development site. Any
additional stormwater management required under current regulation will be provided onsite and could
include best management practices such as: rain gardens, filtration basins, underground storage or other
approved system.
Concept / Sketch Plan Review October 5, 2020
ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 5 of 5
Wetlands
None assumed to be on the development site.
Tree Preservation/Replacement
Site does not contain any significant trees to remove.
Landscaping and Amenities
The project proposes a significant landscape plan including decorative fencing along ¾ of the
development perimeter. Trees are proposed to buffer key locations within the site and generally
throughout the site. Development monument signage is proposed at the northeast development corner at
the intersection of Willow Drive and Kelly Parkway.
The proposed development will have a central common space area, in which, the applicant is proposing a
private play area with benches that will be available to development residents.
TIMING/PHASING
The Applicant will likely develop the project in one phase. If the City reviews and approves the
requested concept / sketch plan request, it is the Applicant’s desire to proceed with an application for
Preliminary PUD and start the formal City review process with hope of obtaining approval in time to
begin construction of the project in Spring/Summer 2021.
CONCLUSION
The applicant respectfully concludes that the conceptual development offers a residential land use that is
consistent with City’s goals and objectives for this area. The multi-family attached townhome
subdivision will provide a unique housing option for the City of Orono.
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Date: September 21, 2020
Subject: #LA20-000052, Mark Rausch o/b/o University of St. Thomas and David Weekley
Homes, NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd., Concept Plan review
Background
The subject property is guided for urban high density residential (20-25 units per acre) in the
2040 comprehensive plan. In March of 2019, the City Council reviewed a concept plan (LA19-
000006) for potential 75-90 unit apartment building at the corner, to be developed under RPUD
zoning.
The City Council did not support that proposal. Councilmembers suggested the development on
this corner should be more in line with the Stonebay townhome development on Kelley
Parkway; this type of development, at lower densities, will require an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and Met Council approval.
Responding to this Council direction, a new developer has prepared a concept plan for a
townhome development featuring 43 townhome units over 12 buildings. The applicant has
attempted to mimic the character of the Stonebay townhomes across the street.
Access to the development would be via two drives off of Kelley Parkway. No access is proposed
onto Willow drive or Wayzata Blvd. The project will be served by municipal water and sanitary
sewer.
The proposal includes a number of sidewalks linking the front doors of the units to sidewalks
along Kelley and Willow.
Applicable Regulations:
Section 78-627 outlines the review procedure for RPUD development.
The first stage is the development of a concept for review by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Following non-binding guidance, a developer will make an application for master
development approval, rezoning, preliminary plat, and in this case, comprehensive plan
amendment. All of these applications are public hearings. After these approvals, the developer
will make an application for a final site plan and building plan approval, to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The RPUD standards are summarized in
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comment on a proposed concept plan for a
3.69 acre/ 43 unit townhome development at the NW corner of Willow and Wayzata.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the external setbacks be
revised to be consistent with the Stonebay townhome development and other comments
provided be addressed.
FILE #LA20-52
September 21, 2020
Page 2 of 5
the table below:
Section Standard Flexibility Requested?
1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or
tied to adjacent RPUD
No. Part of the Stonebay
RPUD
2 Uses. Allowed: Multifamily
residential
3 Sewer availability No. Sewer is available and
the density is greater than 1
unit or 2 acres
4 Density. Each development in
the RPUD district shall have a
density within the range
specified in the comprehensive
plan for the specific site.
No, assuming approval of
amendment.
5 Incentives. The city may utilize
incentives to encourage the
construction of projects which
are consistent with the city's
housing goals.
None requested
6 Floor Ratio Ratio, up to 1.0 To be determined
7a Setbacks Yes. External street setbacks
not met.
7b Height, stories, roof style No. To be verified
7c Outside storage No. None proposed.
11 10% Private Recreational Area
(Active and/or Passive)
No, tot lot shown
12 Common Ownership No.
13 Signage Signage plans not yet
developed
14 Landscaping Landscaping Plans not yet
developed
15 Architectural Standards Final plans not developed,
but are anticipated to be
based on Stonebay palette.
16 Flexibility from standards Allowed and requested
17 Traffic Studies Not suggested
18 Building Permits Expected
19 General regulations applicability Expected
20 Lighting No. Lighting plan not yet
developed
21 Trails Sidewalks and public walks
proposed
FILE #LA20-52
September 21, 2020
Page 3 of 5
Analysis:
Staff has completed its analysis of the concept proposal. To supplement the comments outlined
in the comment letter dated August 26, 2020, Exhibit E:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposal provides a density of about 11.65 units per acre.
The reduction of the guided density from 20-25 units per acre to Urban Medium High Density (10-
20 units per acre) will impact the City’s density calculation.
For comparison, the townhome (excluding the twinhomes on the edge of the development, and
the condominium building) portion of Stonebay provides 47 units in about 6 acres for a density of
7.8 units per acre. The impacts to the City’s density calculations:
Capacity remains in the city’s density calculation allowing a reduction in density for the subject
property. The City should recognize that continued reductions in density, and additions of rural
area may limit the ability to expand MUSA in the future.
The subject property is at the corner of one of Orono’s more intense intersections, with a grocery/
retail on one corner, office on another, and a gas station and fast food restaurant south. Often
higher densities effectively serve as a buffer between these uses and lower densities nearby. Staff
supports higher density at this corner as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
10% recreation area. The plans show 16,129 sq. ft. of private community open space, shown in
the darker green. This area includes a tot lot. The Planning Commission should discuss whether
the play area is appropriate on the edge of the neighborhood, rather than internal to the
neighborhood.
As this property will be platted, park dedication will apply, in addition to the private recreation
requirement.
Setbacks, external. The RPUD standards require a setback of 35 feet for local streets, and 50 feet
from Collector or Arterial streets. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Kelley as a Minor Collector,
Willow as a Major Collector, and Wayzata Blvd as a Minor Reliever. The plan proposes waivers
from these setbacks, showing a 13.7 foot (minimum) setback off of Kelley and Willow, and a 30
A 3.00 609 394 154
1 4.437 91 52 353
*With Amend #3 Orchard Hill added
2 Reduce density to Urban Medium High (10-20 u/a)3.69 10 36 4.276 91 17 353
MUSA totals 227.2 971
3 Reduce density to Urban Medium (3-10 u/a)3.69 3 11 4.162 91 (9)280
MUSA totals 227.2 946
B Notes
No Change (Current Comprehensive Plan Calculations)
"Affordable
Housing"
Acre units
Requirements
Affordable Housing Acre Units are the number of acres guided for densities at 8 units/ acre or more x 8.
Growth difference is the number of units above (or below) the projected growth for 2021-2030 and 2031-2040
Predicted Density, Based on Net Density Table 3B-4, 2040 CMP
Calculated Density is density of all sewered areas in Orono, must be above 3.0
Willow/ Wayzata concept plan Net Residential
Acres (NRA)
Lowest
Guided
Density
Predicted # of
units on property
Calculated
City Density
2021-2030
Growth
Difference
(deficit)
2031-2040
Growth
Difference
(deficit)
FILE #LA20-52
September 21, 2020
Page 4 of 5
foot setback off of Wayzata. Staff recommends that a 30 foot setback be provided on all exterior
streets, to allow for enhanced landscaping as characterized by Stonebay. The proposed setback
to the west (pond) is shown as 12.9, where 35 feet is required. It should be also noted that ‘in no
case’ shall the setback be less than the height of the building. Buildings are expected to be two
story, no higher than 30 feet.
Setbacks, internal. In a townhome development, property lines are generally established at the
border of the building, with at least one building wall shared by the adjoining unit. In these
developments, the primary focus is the distance between buildings, and the distances between
the garage door and the street. The Orono Preserve development (a single family RPUD)
provided a minimum of 15 feet between buildings, in a combination of 5, 7.5, and 10 foot
setbacks. The townhomes in Stonebay have a variety of side yard setbacks, with the smallest at
14 feet.
The plans show a minimum distance of 11.5 feet between the sides of buildings. Where building
face each other, 30 feet is proposed. The distance between the house pad and the edge of the
private street is 20 feet, which will allow parking without encroaching into the street. This
configuration is similar to the Stonebay townhomes, though those driveways can be as short as
18 feet.
Provided for reference in Exhibit F is a snapshot of a portion Stonebay with townhomes,
illustrating the setbacks.
Parking. The proposal includes 9 spots in 4 areas for visitor parking. This is in addition to the
garage parking and the driveway parking for each unit. There is no code requirement for visitor
parking. Given the width of the private road, there will be no parking on the road.
Building design. Building design details are still being developed, but the developer has provided
general schematics for discussion, attached as Exhibit C. Staff has advised the applicant that the
buildings should convey the same ‘character’ as those in Stonebay: colors, materials, roof pitch,
etc.
Landscaping. A landscaping plan has not been completed, which is standard for a project at this
stage. The RPUD standards go into detail regarding the minimum requirements. No deviation is
expected. The plans do include a wrought iron look fence along the East/ west/ and south
property lines. Staff envisions a development incorporate berming and landscaping to establish
an edge to the street/ public areas and the private neighborhood.
Utilities. All utility plans, including stormwater management, water, and sanitary sewer will need
to be approved by the City Engineer and/ or watershed district.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. The Commission should comment on the following:
a. Proposed reduction in density
b. External setbacks
c. Internal setbacks
FILE #LA20-52
September 21, 2020
Page 5 of 5
d. Building design
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff requests feedback on the proposal.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Proposed layout
Exhibit C. Architectural concepts
Exhibit D. Narrative
Exhibit E. Staff comment letter
Exhibit F. Stonebay Comparison
Exhibit G. Section 78-621 regulations
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 6
7. LA20-000052 ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC., 38, UNASSIGNED/PID 33-118-23-11-
0060, CONCEPT PLAN. STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART
Aziz Saddiqui, representing David Weekley Homes, Applicants, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Chair Ressler asked what the setbacks are of the proposed sketch plan.
Mr. Barnhart said the setback off Willow is 13.7 feet, another is 14 feet, and one corner of Kelley
Parkway is 13.7 feet.
Kirchner asked what the requirement would be for Willow Drive.
Mr. Barnhart said on all streets, Kelley, Willow and Wayzata, the minimum required setback is 50 feet.
Gettman noted the one across the street is 36 feet.
Mr. Barnhart said that is correct.
Chair Ressler asked if City code calls for 50 feet.
Mr. Barnhart answered in the affirmative.
Kirchner noted Building 33-36 is an example of an 11.5 foot distance from building-to-building, 30-32
and 33-36, and asked if that is acceptable.
Mr. Barnhart replied the only other higher density detached building project in recent memory is the
Orono Preserve across the street. The Council landed on a 15 foot separation between buildings, and
some of the lots have a 7.5 foot setback and a 7.5 foot setback; on other lots it’s a 5 foot setback and a 10
foot setback. Mr. Barnhart suggested something more understandable.
Kirchner noted 10% of the gross lot area is for recreation and asked if the outlot as proposed meets that
10%.
Barnhart said based on the actual number calculations, the outlot is a darker green and that portion meets
the requirements. However, he pointed out onscreen that it does include the front yard area and the open
space.
Libby said there are 3.69 acres on the site and it’s guided for between 20-25 units per acre, and asked
aren’t they slightly compact and under what they’d actually be able to build as far as density and units.
Barnhart said they’re about half, and the reason they’re considering it is because the City Council
suggested a lower density.
Aziz Saddiqui, 12900 Whitewater, Suite 180, Minnetonka, is responsible for entitlements and
development for David Weekley Homes, and said they’re very excited to bring their second development
into the City. He said they feel they’ve been very successful in the Preserves and are also looking
forward to this development. He noted it’s a very unique location and layout on the parcel and high
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 6
density is one of the areas throughout the country where they’ve been very successful. In looking at this
project and the way it’s located and the way the buildings are laid out, they’ve tried their best not to have
the exposure on the outer part of the community (Willow and Wayzata). Mr. Saddiqui said the front of
the house is towards the back, and serves very well on parcels like this one, and there are many
commercial areas around it. He noted he is a little fearful of relocating the outlot as they will end up
losing more units and the project wouldn’t be as viable as it stands. Looking at the number of units, it
makes more sense to have 45-56 units, and came up with the best plan for what the lot is like. The price
range will be approximately $360,000 to the low $400,000 range.
Libby asked if there is a Home Owner’s Association (HOA).
Mr. Saddiqui replied yes, the HOA is responsible for everything except sewer and water.
Libby asked if they know what the HOA dues would be.
Mr. Saddiqui did not know.
Libby asked if on other projects, the dues are based on square footage.
Mr. Saddiqui responded they are relatively the same, and the units are all mostly the same square footage.
He said this is a new product in this market and they need to explore with the Association here.
Kirchner said it looks like there are 100 feet of variation on the three different floor plans proposed with
the smallest being 1,750 and the largest being 1,850.
Barnhart said at the sketch plan level they don’t expect a huge amount of detail and things will change
and that is why they don’t go into depth with the utility planning and things like that. They generally try
to call out the high points.
Gettman noted Mr. Barnhart brought up the fact that the outlot of the park area might be more open to the
public as opposed to trying to gate the community and restrict it and asked if it would be as open if they
flipped the outlot with Building 3739, thinking about the younger children who would use the playground
and having them not exposed to the Kelley Parkway traffic.
Mr. Saddiqui said the only reason he proposed fencing along the North with a gate is because people
prefer that. He noted another way they could address it is with evergreens to create screening. He said he
could look into flipping the buildings and said he’s trying to avoid the setbacks and then there is always
the fear of losing more units.
Gettman said looking across the street and to the left of the circle, it is well within the 15 feet. He noted
the perimeter setbacks are sacred for the Commission as opposed to the space between the buildings,
because they’re already townhomes.
Mr. Saddiqui said one of the things they’ve done is to stay in three and four units, as people get more
space, more lights, more windows, and that is what they prefer. He said he would try to look into
possibly flip-flopping the buildings.
Libby said he’s familiar with some of the concepts having to do with playgrounds, parks, and in this case
an outlet. He asked if there is any engineering or design rationale that has to do with environment or
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 6
safety, kind of sequestering the playground within the neighborhood rather than having it on the outside.
He said he’s dealt with engineers regarding that with frequency, especially when there are two
thoroughfares that are quite busy, and noted there are carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide concentrations
are extremely high at those intersections. He noted it’s much safer for children who are outside playing to
be away from that and in the corridor of the neighborhood.
Mr. Saddiqui said it’s an excellent question, in his 37 years of doing this work this is the first time
someone has asked it. He stated he would start paying attention to it going forward and haven’t done that
particular research with their engineers.
Erickson asked regarding the street width between units, it is 24 feet as shown, and when he looks at it as
a townhome project, the way it is drawn, it looks like there would be 24 feet of pavement. If compared to
residential standards, there might be 24 feet of pavement on a 50 foot right-of-way. He noted outside his
house, he has 18 feet of pavement, even though it’s a 30 foot right-of-way, and if he is looking at it
correctly, he thinks “oh wow, it would be nice if he had 24 feet of pavement.” He also noticed they are
honoring the 20 foot driveway and that length is good for guest parking and so on. Both of those aspects
of the project look pretty good to him. He also agrees with Libby that an internal playground might be
more marketable in this unsafe world we live in.
Chair Ressler noted right now they’re asking questions and asked if they need to open up a public
hearing.
Barnhart replied it’s not a public hearing, but they can open it up for public comment if they’d like.
Kirchner shared one thing he struggles with is the setbacks and the density, as it seems they’ve guided
this to be far more units, and knows they went back to the drawing board, reduced the units and they’re
still struggling with the setbacks. Realistically one could drop a large building in the center, meet the
setbacks and go vertical, however historically, the City of Orono doesn’t support or appreciate that. He
thinks what the Applicants have done here is trying to find a way to accommodate and still make it a
viable project for them. He also sees some of the concern of being 15 feet off those major roadways.
Kirchner understands it is not official by any means, but he appreciates that the appearance would fit in
with the area, neighborhood and location. He also likes the way it’s designed with the rear-load garages
towards the rear, so as you’re walking past, one would be looking at the front of a home, rather than a big
sheet of pavement with a driveway. He noted the top lot seems to be a point of contention, which perhaps
echoes Mr. Barnhart’s feedback; Kirchner thinks Building 40-43 on the North and South of that building
being included in that recreational space, he doesn’t know if it’s necessary to get to that 10% coverage
and if it’s there just to get to the 10% coverage, he doesn’t really love the idea as it just runs alongside the
buildings and there is no definitive line of it being the side-yard versus incorporated in with the
recreational area.
Mr. Saddiqui noted they do meet the 10% requirement, and the intent of bringing the concept in front of
the Commission is to understand and see how they can make the project viable for both the City to accept
and what they would leave behind as a David Weekley product. He noted they are extremely proud of
what they do and they don’t look for cutting corners and just trying to make a buck out of it. He
reiterated that is not the intent of David Weekley nor the culture within the company, which is why he
was upfront with them that if it didn’t work for the Board, they can go down to 35-38 units. Because this
is a PUD, they have the luxury to adjust in terms of the setbacks that would give what the original
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 6
intentions are of the City to achieve as many units as possible, while at the same time can they offset the
setbacks and come up with a building layout that is not directly exposed to those two streets (which they
did), and in order to enhance and protect the safety of what Mr. Libby said, they have nice ornamental
fencing, with nice piers, columns, entry features and brick monuments on all corners of the property. He
noted they are respecting conditions by bringing in a product that will support that corner, and they may
be able to play with the topline area and bring them inside what Mr. Barnhart is recommending. If they
work with the certain setbacks, this project will work; however, if they stick by the book of 15 feet, 50
feet and 50 feet, the project is dead. He noted that is where they are at today, and it would be nice if after
the meeting he could go back to the team and say they have some direction.
Kirchner asked regarding the side portion along 40 and 43: if they did away with it and did not count it as
recreational space, would they still meet the 10%.
Rausch said they’d be about 3,000-3,500 feet short.
Kirchner said right alongside those buildings, it’s not really something the people residing there would
view as a public space, but rather viewed as the side to a building or side-yard. He would appreciate a bit
more thought as to how they can incorporate a little more square footage that way.
Mr. Saddiqui said to open up the thought process of what was initially proposed or thought, as to the very
high density…they were very skeptical if it was going to work in this location with the number of units
because they were going down to 60% of what was proposed. If they are going to stick with some of
those side-yard scenarios, it would shrink significantly.
Chair Ressler stated Orono and Burnsville are probably different, and Orono prides itself as a rural area,
although it is becoming more dense, which is something requested by the Met Council, and it hasn’t
necessarily been welcomed. He noted some of the applicants today with single family residence being
built 30 feet from a property for one home and having resistance against that. He said density is a valid
question and the Applicant is trying to figure out what this will work for and where it will work, and
Chair Ressler isn’t sure it’s Orono. He said the way it was guided was perhaps more units, but also
perhaps more centralized and they’ve seen other concept plans (preliminary) which were proposed and
after the Commission’s feedback they haven’t worked out because it centralizes the units which gives
more green space and softens the approach, which the Commission likes. At the same time, by not
centralizing and reducing the number of units, it can also be a burden because in this case they’re
spreading out the units and the total is less, but the effect is more because they’re not centralized. Chair
Ressler tries to stay open-minded because this is a new concept and new concepts have followed trends
and that is how they get established. He knows it’s difficult to see and while looking at the plan, it looks
daunting as there is no softening or trees proposed. To summarize, Wayzata Boulevard is a very busy
road and represents Orono…he thinks the 50 foot setback is probably his feedback for that area. He noted
36 feet is agreeable on Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive, reluctantly. To summarize, because they’re
talking about less units but more sprawl, he’d like to see a larger setback and that may be a problem for
the development, but that is his personal perspective.
Gettman noted what the Applicant is hearing loud and clear is that the concept of setbacks, and he asked
if they can put a different type of unit with the other units. Specifically, can they mix a higher density
building within there somewhere, especially as they play around with the outlot, and even potentially with
commercial on the first floor and units above. Rather than trying to shove or piecemeal things around, he
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 6
suggests trying to think out of the box as far as literally mixing and matching different things to come
before the City Council with.
Mr. Saddiqui said with all due respect, they are not trying to shove anything anywhere; they are proposing
what they think works best given the parameters they have in Orono. On a parcel of this size, they cannot
mix the product…it would have to be substantially larger parcels and this is a very tight amount of
acreage to have 2 or 3 different types of product mixed.
Gettman noted it’s not mixing it just to mix it, but rather to get the most out of the area.
Barnhart said he thinks they’re giving good feedback in terms of what they’d like to see, but noted they’re
getting into the weeds a bit. He said now the Applicant takes the feedback and either chooses to make
changes for the Council or they want to hear what the Council has to say. He said they should pull back a
bit on some of the detail comments because he feels they got the message out in terms of what they’d like
to see with the setback. Frankly, it’s not suggested to introduce commercial or even a mix of units here,
the Council has already suggested that the 20-25 units is too high and they’d like to lower that so that is
what the Applicant is trying to do. At the sketch plan level, he feels they’ve gotten good feedback and
they can leave it at that.
Mr. Saddiqui said they will use the two setbacks Mr. Ressler mentioned as a guideline and they’ll see
what they can come up with and try to address the outlot, as well.
Libby concurred with Kirchner on the setbacks for the two thoroughfares for Willow and Wayzata, he
thinks they need to be set back and they’re fortunate to have someone in law enforcement who deals with
these issues on a technical basis with cause-and-effect. He said he likes several things he heard and
always greatly admires people with a compass of staying for the long-term and people who have a
commitment to high fit and finish when it comes to architectural design and style, and he compliments the
Applicant for that. He said he’d also like to support Chair Ressler’s comment, with all of Mr. Barnhart’s
hard work on the 20/40 Comprehensive Plan, which brought from a 20 year old plan and kept the
integrity of what countless people in Orono believe and enjoy, which is the rural setting versus an urban
setting. He noted the plan is different but that doesn’t make it bad, and it satisfies something very
important: Orono needs housing. If this is quality housing that people like and want to buy, it’s
complementary to the community. He noted the more the development can look and feel like a rural
community he better off they will all be.
Mr. Saddiqui said if anyone is in Maple Grove in the future, he asked them to please visit the Donagal
development, where the buildings are detached townhomes which are eight feet apart and it will give a
glimpse the product, the aesthetics, mix and multiple elevations, color and materials they have come up
with. He said it is a very impressive and well-received landscape of architecture and noted they are
selling like hotcakes all across the country, because they are addressing what people are looking for in
suburban living with urban looks.
Libby said the design is considered to be an urban, medium-to-high density residential mixed use.
Erickson said historically, about 15 years ago, he served on a volunteer citizens committee that was a
joint committee between Long Lake and Orono and they were looking at alternatives and design features
for the County Road 112 improvement. One of his positions was trying to get funding for as much buried
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 6
utilities along Wayzata Boulevard as he possibly could. He succeeded in Long Lake and it’s beautiful
and noted he also tried along this part of Wayzata Boulevard from Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road and
succeeded only in a little section where the storm-water pond is. He was told by Mr. Barnhart’s
predecessor that they’d get the developers to do the rest of it, and he hasn’t seen that. He said if it could
somehow be done, it would beautify that project in that area much more effectively than five more feet of
setback.
Orono Crossings
Front Elevation –Four Unit Building
Orono Crossings
Rear Elevation
Right side elevation
Plan 3 -1850
Left Side Elevation
Plan 2 -1800 Plan 1 -1750
Side and Rear Elevations –Four Unit Building
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 1 SCHEME 2 SCHEME 3 SCHEME 4
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 1 SCHEME 2
SCHEME 3 SCHEME 4
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 1
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 1
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 2
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 2
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 3
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 3
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 4
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA
02SEP20
SCHEME 4
THE RESERVE
at
TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES
DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES: MINNESOTA
02SEP20
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES: DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES
02SEP20
PAINT COLORS ARE REPRESEN-
TATIONAL OF THE VINYL SIDING
MATERIALS SELECTED.
ROOF
BOARD
+ BATTEN
TRIM +
GARAGE +
BRACKETS
LAP SIDING
ENTRY
SHUTTER
STONE
SCHEME 1
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
ASPEN WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
METRO GRAY
(SW 0077: CLASSIC FRENCH GRAY)
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6258: TRICORN BLACK
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
02: BLACK
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
GUNNISON
SCHEME 2
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
CARBON
(SW 7069: IRON ORE)
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
GREYSTONE
(SW 9170: ACIER)
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 7580: CARNELIAN
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
167: BORDEAUX
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
WHEATON
SCHEME 3
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
NANTUCKET
(SW 9162: AFRICAN GRAY)
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
INDIGO
(SW 2739: CHARCOAL BLUE)
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6258: TRICORN BLACK
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
02: BLACK
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
ECHO RIDGE
SCHEME 4
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
CYPRESS
(SW 7748: GREEN EARTH)
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
PEPPERCORN
(SW 7048: URBANE BRONZE)
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6300: BURGUNDY
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
78: WINEBERRY
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
EUCALYPTUS
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES: DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES
02SEP20
PAINT COLORS ARE REPRESEN-
TATIONAL OF THE VINYL SIDING
MATERIALS SELECTED.
ALL IMAGERY IS ‘REPRESENTATION-
AL’ AND INTENDED FOR PRELIM-
INARY COLOR/MATERIAL REVIEW.
ALL FINAL COLOR/MATERIAL
CHOICES SHOULD BE MADE FROM
ACTUAL SAMPLES PROVIDED BY
PRODUCT MANUFACTURER.
SCHEME 1
ROOF
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
LAP SIDING
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
METRO GRAY
(SW 0077: CLASSIC FRENCH GRAY)
TRIM + GARAGE + BRACKETS
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
BOARD+ BATTEN
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
ASPEN WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
STONE
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
GUNNISON
ENTRY
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6258: TRICORN BLACK
SHUTTER
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
02: BLACK
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES: DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES
02SEP20
PAINT COLORS ARE REPRESEN-
TATIONAL OF THE VINYL SIDING
MATERIALS SELECTED.
ALL IMAGERY IS ‘REPRESENTATION-
AL’ AND INTENDED FOR PRELIM-
INARY COLOR/MATERIAL REVIEW.
ALL FINAL COLOR/MATERIAL
CHOICES SHOULD BE MADE FROM
ACTUAL SAMPLES PROVIDED BY
PRODUCT MANUFACTURER.
SCHEME 2
LAP SIDING
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
GREYSTONE
(SW 9170: ACIER)
TRIM + GARAGE + BRACKETS
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
BOARD+ BATTEN
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
CARBON
(SW 7069: IRON ORE)
STONE
COUNTRY LEDGE
WHEATON
ENTRY
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 7580: CARNELIAN
SHUTTER
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
167: BORDEAUX
ROOF
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES: DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES
02SEP20
PAINT COLORS ARE REPRESEN-
TATIONAL OF THE VINYL SIDING
MATERIALS SELECTED.
ALL IMAGERY IS ‘REPRESENTATION-
AL’ AND INTENDED FOR PRELIM-
INARY COLOR/MATERIAL REVIEW.
ALL FINAL COLOR/MATERIAL
CHOICES SHOULD BE MADE FROM
ACTUAL SAMPLES PROVIDED BY
PRODUCT MANUFACTURER.
SCHEME 3
LAP SIDING
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
INDIGO
(SW 2739: CHARCOAL BLUE)
TRIM + GARAGE + BRACKETS
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
BOARD+ BATTEN
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
NANTUCKET
(SW 9162: AFRICAN GRAY)
STONE
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
ECHO RIDGE
SHUTTER
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
02: BLACK
ENTRY
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6258: TRICORN BLACK
ROOF
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES: DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES
02SEP20
PAINT COLORS ARE REPRESEN-
TATIONAL OF THE VINYL SIDING
MATERIALS SELECTED.
ALL IMAGERY IS ‘REPRESENTATION-
AL’ AND INTENDED FOR PRELIM-
INARY COLOR/MATERIAL REVIEW.
ALL FINAL COLOR/MATERIAL
CHOICES SHOULD BE MADE FROM
ACTUAL SAMPLES PROVIDED BY
PRODUCT MANUFACTURER.
SCHEME 4
LAP SIDING
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
PEPPERCORN
(SW 7048: URBANE BRONZE)
TRIM + GARAGE + BRACKETS
ROYAL VINYL TRIM
WHITE
(SW 7005: PURE WIHTE)
BOARD+ BATTEN
ROYAL EXTERIOR PORTFOLIO VINYL
CYPRESS
(SW 7748: GREEN EARTH)
STONE
BORAL
COUNTRY LEDGE
EUCALYPTUS
ENTRY
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW 6300: BURGUNDY
SHUTTER
EXTERIOR SHUTTER SOURCE
78: WINEBERRY
ROOF
GAF
TIMBERLINE
CHARCOAL
WAYZATA BLVD
WI
L
L
O
W
D
R
N
KELL
E
Y
P
K
W
Y
1-5
6-8
12-1516-1920-23
24-26
27-29
33-36 37-39
40-43
21
0
L
F
385 LF
27
1
L
F
30-32
9-11
11
3
L
F
2
3 2
2
OUTLOT
OUTLOT
OUTLOT
MONUMENT
SIGN
WROUGHT IRON LOOK
FENCE
5' PUBLIC WALK
4' PRIVATE WALK (TYP)
PRIVATE PLAYGROUND
COMMUNITY OPEN
SPACE (16,139 sf)
SITE DATA
TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 160,851 sf /3.69 AC (PID:3311823110060)
TOTAL TOWNHOMES: 43 UNITS : 11.7 UNITS/GROSS AC
TOTAL ROADWAY LENGTH: 979 LF - PRIVATE (24' B-B)
CURRENT 2040 FUTURE LAND USE: HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (20-25 UPA)
PROP. LAND USE:URBAN MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
/ MIXED USE (10-20 UPA)
EXISTING ZONING:RR-1B PUD
PROPOSED ZONING:RPUD
CONCEPT LAYOUT TOWNHOMES
BUILDING SETBACKS (ALL):
Front / Driveway to Private Road Back of Curb: 20 ft
Side to Private Road Back of Curb: 10 ft
Rear Between Buildings: 30 ft
Side Between Buildings: 11 ft (Stoop/Entry = 8' Min.)
Wayzata Blvd: 30 ft
Willow Drive / Kelly Parkway: 15 ft (Stoop = 13' Min.)
West Property line: 15 ft (Stoop = 12.9' Min.)
Building setback to Internal Outlots = 0'
All units are slab on grade without basements
WETLANDS: None assumed per LiDAR topography
DATE: 9-15-2020
733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612.758.3080
612.758.3099
www.alliant-inc.com
MAIN
FAX
ORONO CROSSINGS - CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL - SITE PLAN
ORONO, MINNESOTA
PROPOSED BUILDING OR STOOP/ENTRY
LEGEND
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, BUILDINGS, ETC
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER, DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, PATIOS
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
DECORATIVE FENCING (WROUGHT IRON LOOK) W/ MASONRY
COLUMNS
PRIVATE ROADWAY, DRIVEWAYS, PRIVATE PARKING +
SIDEWALKS (BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC)
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE / PERVIOUS AREA
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE / RECREATIONAL
August 26, 2020
Alliant Engineering
Attn: Mark Rausch VIA EMAIL
733 Marquette Ave. Suite 700 mrausch@alliant-inc.com
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Orono Crossings sketch
File # LA20-000052
Mr. Rausch,
The City has received and completed its’ preliminary review of your proposed Orono Crossing subdivision,
consisting of 43 single family units in 12 townhome buildings.
Your application is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday, September 21. The meeting
starts at 6:00 pm. An agenda and staff report will be emailed to you on or about Friday, September 18th.
At this time, I have the following comments to offer. These comments may echo some of the comments raised in
May during a review of a preliminary draft.
Additional approvals.
1. I anticipate this project being developed as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The RPUD
standards include specific guidance on landscaping/ screening, building materials/ finishes. This project
will require a zone change.
2. As a RPUD, the Council reviews the project in two formal steps: concept plan review, and Master
Development plan. The concept plan should include the following additional information:
Height of all buildings and square footage of buildings anticipated.
3. 43 units in 3.69 acres = 11.65 units per acre. The project as proposed will require a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment because the proposed density is lower that as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
General comments.
4. RPUD zoning requires 10% of the gross land area to be used for private recreational. I see that a tot lot
is proposed. Are other amenities anticipated?
5. The RPUD requires certain setbacks for multifamily attached structures:
a. Collector street, 50 feet,
b. All other property lines, 30 feet. I think the intent of this is setbacks from external streets, not the
internal setbacks.
6. The RPUD requirements include specific landscaping standards. I have attached these for you.
7. It is suggested that the building design/ material continue the architectural standard established by
Stonebay.
8. I note that the narrative suggests a decorative fence and masonry columns, a detail may be helpful.
Staff continues to suggest that screening be incorporated along Willow and Wayzata, and the screening
include berming.
9. Watershed District approval will be required for all stormwater management, and erosion control plans.
10. Staffs analysis of the project based on the applicable section of the RPUD standards is summarized in the
table below. The Planning Commission and Council find this summary table helpful in their analysis.
Section Standard Flexibility Requested?
1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres
or tied to adjacent RPUD
No. Part of the Stonebay
RPUD
2 Uses. Allowed: Multifamily
residential
3 Sewer availability No. Sewer is available and
the density is greater than
1 unit or 2 acres
4 Density. Each development in
the RPUD district shall have a
density within the range
specified in the
comprehensive plan for the
specific site.
No, assuming approval of
amendment.
5 Incentives. The city may
utilize incentives to
encourage the construction of
projects which are consistent
with the city's housing goals.
None requested
6 Floor Ratio Ration, up to 1.0 To be determined
7a Setbacks Yes. External street
setbacks not met.
7b Height, stories, roof style No. To be verified
7c Outside storage No. None proposed.
11 10% Private Recreational Area
(Active and/or Passive)
No, tot lot shown, size to
be verified
12 Common Ownership No.
13 Signage Signage plans not yet
developed
14 Landscaping Landscaping Plans not yet
developed
15 Architectural Standards Final plans not developed,
but are anticipated to be
based on Stonebay
palette.
16 Flexibility from standards
17 Traffic Studies Not suggested
18 Building Permits Expected
19 General regulations
applicability
Expected
20 Lighting No. Lighting plan not yet
developed
21 Trails
As noted above, this project is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on September 21st. If you would
like to make changes to or supplement your plans, those changes must be received by Monday, September 14th.
Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions
on the above requirements.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Enc. Section 78-621 RPUD regulations.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. Adopt an ordinance allowing for the amendment of resolutions approving variances.
2. Background. The City Council approves variances via resolution. Frequently, the plans
reviewed by the City Council area attached to the resolution, establishing the formal record of
approval.
Occasionally, the applicant requests a modification to the plans. When these changes are deemed
minor, staff brings them to Council for approval. Amendments deemed major, have required
repeating of the variance process. The City Attorney prepared an ordinance that codifies this
practice.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to
approve the changes to the ordinance as drafted.
4. Public Comment. No comments for or against the application have been received.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the ordinance as drafted.
Exhibits
A. Draft Ordinance
B. PC Staff report
C. PC Minutes September 21, 2020 Draft
Item No.: 18 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000060 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to
Amendments to Variances
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
210896v1
ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 78-131
RELATED TO VARIANCE AMENDMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 78-131 is hereby added with the following
language:
Sec. 78-131 – Variance Amendments.
A proposed change to an existing variance shall be processed as either a minor amendment or
major amendment as defined in this section as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
a. All documents affected by the approved amendment shall be amended and replaced in
their entirety. However an approved minor amendment will not modify the original
issuance date of the existing variance for all purposes including Extensions under Sec.
78-129 and Expiration under Sec. 78-128 of this Chapter.
b. Minor amendments.
1. Proposed amendments to variances involving twenty (20) percent or less of the
total existing variance or the proposed amendment is reasonably believed by the
Zoning Administrator to not be materially different than the underlying variance
are minor amendments. Minor amendments may be heard by the city council
without a public hearing and without planning commission consideration.
2. The Zoning Administrator may determine that a proposed amendment is a major
amendment, even if it meets the criteria of a minor amendment, and shall follow
the procedure for major amendments.
c. Major amendments. A major amendment to the variance shall be processed and approved
in the same manner as if it were a new variance request except that submission
requirements shall be modified as appropriate by city staff to reflect the nature of the
proposed amendment.
d. Major amendments shall include:
1. Any amendment that is not a minor amendment.
2. Any amendment determined to be a major amendment by the Zoning
Administrator.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
210896v1
ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2020 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
_______________________________
ATTEST: Denis Walsh, Mayor
______________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2020.
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Date: September 21, 2020
Subject: #LA20-60, City of Orono Text Amendment related to revisions to variance
resolutions
Public Hearing
Background
The City Council approves variances via resolution, and the final plans are attached to these
resolutions for reference. Occasionally, the property owner desires a minor change to the plans
that do not impact the issues discussed, but would require a variance if proposed separately.
Items typically have included minor expansions into the setbacks, or a change in configuration of
retaining walls.
Planning Staff has presented these minor changes to the City Council for approval. The Council
also has the option to remand the change back through the variance process.
The proposed ordinance, drafted by the City Attorney codifies this practice.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinances as drafted.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Application Summary: This text amendment codifies the Council practice of approving minor
amendments to the plans attached to the resolution grating variance approval.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 21, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 1
8. LA20-000060 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO AMENDMENTS
TO VARIANCES. STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART.
Barnhart said when the Commission reviews a variance, they see the plans attached. When those
variances are approved, those plans are attached to the resolution. Occasionally some minor changes
need to be made that are identified during the construction process. If those changes are minor but still
would require a variance, Staff has taken those through the City Council process and at an open meeting,
Council can say this minor change is appropriate and they are going to amend the resolution. If it’s a
major change, they go through the process of public hearings and all of that. He said that is the practice
they’ve been doing for 15-20 years. The City Code technically doesn’t allow that practice, and the City
Attorney has suggested they adjust the code to allow that practice just described (Planning Staff makes a
determination if a proposed amendment is appropriate or minor, if the Council concurs, they can approve
that minor change, if not, they can remand it back through the public hearing process. He noted this
ordinance codifies what Barnhart has just described. Staff recommends approval as drafted.
Gettman asked Barnhart how they continue to document the minor changes.
Barnhart replied they re-publish the resolution with new drawings. He said the reason they’re doing this
for the variance process is because State statute doesn’t require public hearing for variances, it is Orono’s
own rule, so in the City Attorney’s view they can adjust it that way.
Chair Ressler noted the scope is two-fold, one is to preserve time, because it seemed to be a minor
change, and two being mindful that if there is something the Council would like the Commission’s
feedback, they can send it back to them. He said it doesn’t relieve the Commission of being able to weigh
in if the Council has discretion and opinion to do so.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m.
Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA20-000060 City of Orono Text Amendment
Related to Amendments to Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. To understand and summarize Council’s goals relative to boat storage regulations.
2. Background. Council has directed staff to prepare an amendment to the existing boat storage
regulations in the city code, Section 78-1577 (4), in order to clarify them and ensure their
enforceability.
While developing a revision, staff and the city attorney quickly came to the realization that it was
necessary that the amendments to this section of the code should extend beyond closing a few
loopholes. A rewrite of this section would be necessary. Prior to presenting a revision, staff seeks
Council confirmation on the following issues/ questions:
1. What are the primary concerns regarding exterior boat storage? What concerns is the city
trying to address; what are we protecting?
a. Are there similar concerns with other, exterior non-boat related storage (utility
trailers, snowmobile trailers)?
2. The current code includes certain storage parameters for boats or trailers longer than 30 feet.
Should there be a differentiation based on length?
3. Is there a place where boats (or boats on trailers) should not be placed?
4. Should there be different rules for summer versus winter?
5. Should storage of boats (and boats on trailers) be permitted differently based on whether or
not the property is on the lake or off-lake?
6. Does the Council view the storage of all watercraft the same way? Non-motorized boats;
canoes; and/or kayaks? Jet Skis, and similar?
7. Does operability of the watercraft matter? Seaworthiness (can it float)?
8. Does the storage location differ if it is an empty trailer; a non-boat trailer; or a boat on a
trailer?
9. Is there an appropriate maximum size/length/type of watercraft allowed to be stored outdoors
on a residential property? What is that size? The code currently calls out a 30 foot limit.
10. Is there a difference between seasonal storage and long-term storage?
11. Does the brand of the boat matter?
12. Is there a requirement for shrink wrapping for long-term or seasonal storage?
13. Should the storage location have to be hard surface? Is the storage/parking location hardcover
by default?
14. Is there a limit to the number of boats and/or boat trailers to be stored outdoors on a
residential property?
15. Does ownership of the watercraft matter?
16. Do Setbacks matter? Setbacks based on size/height?
3. Public Comment. No public hearing has been held to date.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff requests feedback.
Item No.: 19 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000047 – Text Amendment Boat Storage
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests feedback.
Exhibits
A. Section 78-1577
(1)
a.
b.
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
d.
e.
(2)
a.
b.
c.
(3)
a.
Sec. 78-1577. - Exterior storage in R districts.
In all R districts, it is the responsibility of the owner of any property, improved or unimproved, to maintain the outdoor areas; including
courtyards and the like, of the property and adjacent rights-of-way in a manner that complies with the following requirements. All
recreational vehicles, mobile homes, camping trailers, motor homes, pickup coaches, travel trailers, special mobile equipment, and utility
trailers shall meet the requirements of this Code. Additionally, all exterior storage must comply with subdivision (6) of this section.
Definitions:
Blight means a deteriorated condition, something that impairs or destroys.
Junk means any cast-off, damaged, discarded, junked, obsolete, salvage, scrapped, unusable, worn-out or wrecked
object, thing or material composed in whole or in part of asphalt, brick, carbon, cement, plastic, or other synthetic
substance, fiber, glass, metal, paper, plaster, plaster of paris, rubber, terra cotta, wool, cotton, cloth, canvas,
organic matter or other substance, regardless of perceived market value or requiring reconditioning in order to be
used for its original purpose.
Recreational vehicle. Mobile home and recreational vehicle shall mean and include the following definitions, and
shall not include any manufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or
certificate, for uses including but not limited to those listed below:
Camping trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and
vacation uses, also called a pop-up camper.
Motor home means a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed
as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle.
Pickup camper means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling
for travel, recreation and vacation.
Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary
dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer by the
manufacturer of the trailer.
Special mobile equipment means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or
property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including but not limited to: ditch digging
equipment, moving dollies, pump hoists and other well-drilling equipment, street sweeping vehicles, and other
machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck-tractors,
ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers, scarifiers, earth-moving equipment. The
term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks, truck-mounted transit mixers, truck-mounted feed grinders, or
other motor vehicles designed for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has been
attached.
Utility trailer means any motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or personal watercraft trailer, designed for
carrying of snowmobiles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on its own structure and for being drawn by
a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an
auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached.
[Parking regulated.] Parking of recreational vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows:
It is unlawful for any person to park a mobile home or recreational vehicle upon public property for human
habitation
It is unlawful for any person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile home, recreational vehicle in any "R" district for
more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least five feet from any property line.
It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more
than 72 hours without a permit from the city.
Vehicle storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the city shall be operable and currently licensed.
The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in "R" districts is regulated as follows:
Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds
or less is allowed in all "R" districts.
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
(4)
a.
b.
c.
d.
1.
2.
e.
Parking of vehicles in "R" districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has the potential to create negative impacts on
the surrounding neighborhood. These impacts may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of
vehicle); vibration; glare; odors; soil/water contamination (from dripping, washing, etc.); hazards to pedestrians by
way of proximity, especially on private roads; wear and tear on local or private roads; propensity to offload
remaining cargo on site at end of day; and visual incompatibility with the character of a neighborhood. Such use
may be acceptable under certain conditions in zoning districts where lot areas are generally two acres or larger.
Therefore, parking of such vehicles requires each of the following conditions be met:
Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator.
Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines.
Vehicle must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred.
Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building.
The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time.
In a shared driveway situation, the applicant shall demonstrate that the appropriate easement exists.
Minimum lot size of five acres. For any property at least two acres but less than five acres in area, where it can
be shown that prior to the effective date of this section such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular
basis prior to and after January 1, 2004, a vehicle storage permit may be granted if the above conditions a.
through f. are met, subject also to the following limitations:
A vehicle storage permit may only be issued for properties within the RR-1B, RR-1A, and LR-1A zoning
districts.
Such permit shall be granted only to the current property owner and only for the specific vehicle applied
for. The current owner may replace the vehicle in kind, but shall not add other such vehicles. Any
replacement vehicle must be registered with the city within 30 days to transfer its permitted status.
This permit shall not apply to subsequent property owners, subsequent property owners shall not be
considered as having a grandfathered permit by virtue of their predecessor's permit.
This permit shall automatically and permanently expire if the vehicle storage is voluntarily discontinued
for a period of one year.
[Storage of boats and boat trailers.] Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the
following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes:
Licensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the
owner or occupant of the property. All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that
inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent
being to discourage the long-term storage of inoperable boats on residential property.
Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a group of contiguous commonly owned
properties that does not contain a principle residence structure.
Maximum length. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 30 feet in length shall not be stored on any
residential property except within a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code
standards. Exception: Existing boats over 30 feet in length which are documented to have been stored on the
property within the 24 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall
be allowed to continue such storage practice until the property is sold, and shall meet the setback requirements of
this section.
Allowed storage locations. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feet in length may be stored outside on
residential property as follows:
Lakeshore lots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and lakeshore yard as long as
they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors.
Nonlakeshore lots. Boats maybe stored in a side yard and rear yard; trailerable boats may be stored on
trailers in a driveway in a front yard or side street yard.
Required setbacks. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers shall be stored no less than five feet from any lot line and
f.
g.
(5)
(6)
a.
b.
1.
2.
3.
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
d.
no less than 15 feet from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot.
Screening. Screening is not required for outside boat storage when in conformance with this section. If boats are
shrink wrapped, white is the preferred color but is not mandatory.
Dispute resolution. Complaints regarding boats stored in lakeshore yards and potentially impacting a neighbor's
views of the lake will be referred to a dispute resolution committee, consisting of the planning director, the
building official, and a member of the planning and zoning staff.
[Prohibited parking or storage.] Outdoor parking or storage of special mobile equipment as defined in this section shall
be prohibited in any "R" district.
Prohibited material storage. Any violation of this section is subject to abatement upon seven days' written notice to the
owner of private premises on which such material is found or any conditions in violation of this code section exist. The
owner of the property will be determined as shown by the records of the office of the county recorder. The city may
remove such matter or correct any conditions in violation, and certify the cost of such removals or corrections as any
other special assessment. Additionally, the city may also seek injunctive relief for violation of this section. Owners of
private property shall remove and keep removed from all exterior areas of all residential properties the following items:
Pest harborage. All exterior property shall be free from rodent harborage and infestation. Boxes, lumber, scrap
metal, and similar materials shall not be allowed to accumulate outside a structure in a manner that attracts an
infestation of pests. Materials permitted and approved for exterior storage shall be neatly stacked.
Trash and debris.
All household garbage, offal, dead animals, animal and human waste, and waste materials.
Accumulations of litter, glass, scrap materials (such as wood, metal, paper, and plastics), junk, combustible
materials, stagnant water, plastic bags or trash.
Accumulations of clothing and any other items not designed for outdoor storage.
Non-trash items.
Accumulations of wood pallets.
Accumulations of vehicle parts or tires.
All construction and building materials unless such materials are being used at the time in the construction of
a building, in which case such construction must be permitted and on a continuous, uninterrupted basis.
All appliances or appliance parts.
All indoor or upholstered furniture of a type or material which is deteriorated by exposure to outdoor
elements.
All recycling materials except for reasonable accumulations, amounts consistent with a policy of regular
removal, which are stored in a well-maintained manner according to Chapter 50 and Chapter 54.
All other non-trash items which:
Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with normal and usual use; or
Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with the intended use of the property; or
Are likely to obstruct or impede the necessary passage of fire or other emergency personnel.
Fertilizer and burial of waste. No person shall leave, deposit, or cause to be placed on any private ground any
garbage, sewage, waste, debris, carcass, or other substance or matter which is offensive or unhealthy by
decomposition unless the same be buried at least three (3) feet under the surface of the ground; provided, that the
use of manure and phosphorous free fertilizer in the normal course for agriculture or horticulture is permitted.
(Code 1984, § 10.60(13); Ord. No. 206 2nd series, § 1, 9-10-2001; Ord. No. 4 3rd series, § 2, 11-11-2003; Ord. No. 21 3rd series, § 1, 11-8-2004;
Ord. No. 29 3rd series, §§ 1—3, 10-24-2005)
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. Adopt a summary ordinance for publication and to provide direction to staff relative to
the definition of dry-buildable.
2. Background. The City Council approved changes to the subdivision code at their meeting on
September 14, 2020.
Due to the costs associated with publishing a 39 page ordinance amendment, staff has prepared a
summary ordinance. Staff recommends adoption of this summary ordinance for publication
purposes.
Dry-buildable
At the September 14th meeting, the Council discussed the definition of ‘dry buildable’, and
directed staff to research the issue. This was in response to a surveyors comment that slopes at
18% were too shallow to be excluded from the determination of dry-buildable.
The attached Exhibit B outlines staff’s findings. In summary, there is nothing in state statutes or
rules that establishes an 18% slope as un-buildable. Our application of 18% was historical. The
City can establish any slope it deems appropriate. If the Council desires to change the definition
from 18%, staff will prepare the appropriate documents for public hearing, Planning Commission,
and Council review.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Bollis) on a
motion to approve the changes to the subdivision code as proposed.
4. Public Comment. The only comment received to date is attached as Exhibit B.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the summary ordinance and authorize its publication
Provide staff direction as to the desired changes to dry-buildable.
Exhibits
A. Summary Ordinance
B. Dry-Buildable discussion
References
CC Staff report and exhibits September 14, 2020
Item No.: 20 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: LA19-000065 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to
Subdivisions
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _____, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO LAND SUBDIVISION
AND PLATTING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on September 14, 2020, Ordinance ____, Third Series was
adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No.____, Third
Series, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the Council amends Chapter 82 of
the Orono City Code regarding regulations and definitions applicable to subdivision and platting. The
Ordinance clarifies and streamlines the procedure for subdividing property, including adding definitions,
revising the review process, revising security requirements, and revising certain design standards,
including cul de sacs design.
APPROVED for publication by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of October,
2020.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Summary Ordinance published in The Lake Pioneer newspaper the week of ____________, 2020.
CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 12, 2020
TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director
RE: Density discussion
The City Council requested information regarding the origins of the 18 percent rule as it applies to
the existing and proposed definitions of “dry buildable”.
Dry Buildable is used in the development of lots as part of a subdivision and is intended to remove
lands that are either not buildable due to protected status (water, wetlands, bluffs) or their
characteristics make development of home or septic sites not appropriate without major grading that
is likely to change the nature of the development. There is a minimum of 0.5 acres of contiguous
dry-buildable for sewered lots, and 2 contiguous acres for non sewered lots.
Dry buildable has been referenced in ordinances since at least 1976, but not defined until May,
2018 (Ord 206 3rd series) as part of a general clean-up of ordinance definitions. Historically, dry
buildable had only been applied to subdivisions, in the creation of lots.
Steep slopes were identified as those 12% or greater when the city adopted the DNRs Shoreland
regulations in February, 1992. Those same regulations identify toe and top of slope, referencing an
18% grade below or above a bluff.
In researching this question, the 18% designation of steep slopes, staff reviewed the state rules and
statutes regarding septic systems and Shoreland rules, and the city code regarding floodplain,
Shoreland management, and septic rules. Staff could find no reference in those sources specifically
referencing 18%, the only place it is mentioned is in the definition of toe and top of bluff.
Given there is no state definition of dry-buildable, the City Council may establish their own
definition of dry buildable to include or exclude any slope desired. The slope definition could also
be removed.
Dry Buildable (Zoning Code) Dry buildable means that portion of the lot not encumbered by
the waters of a duly recorded lake or river, wetlands, bluffs, or slopes greater than 18
percent.
Dry buildable land (Subdivision Code) means land area occurring within the property lines
of a parcel or lot, excluding drainageways, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland
or slopes of 18 percent or greater.
The graphics below illustrate the comparative slopes.
Exhibit A Definitions. City definitions:
Lot area (Zoning Code) means the area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot
lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or
wetland or area which has been dedicated as public right-of-way.
Lot area, minimum, (Subdivision Code) means minimum area required for each proposed lot
as prescribed in chapter 78. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must
contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands,
public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the
ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the floodplain elevation
for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with chapter 58, article II. In urban areas
served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the
minimum areas as prescribed in chapter 78 or half-acre, whichever is less (exclusive of
public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the
ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain
elevation for a specific property), and have legal access to the building site without
encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area.
Steep Slope means lands having average slopes of 12 percent or greater as measured over
horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs.
Bluff means a topographic feature, such as a hill, cliff or embankment, having the following
characteristics (An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50
feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff):
(1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
(2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water
body;
(3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above
the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and
(4) The slope must drain toward the water body.
Bluff, toe of the, means the lower point of the lowest 50-foot segment with an average slope
exceeding 18 percent. If the lowest such point is lakeward of the OHWL, the OHWL will be
defined as the toe.
Bluff, top of the, means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope
becomes more than 18 percent and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 feet or
more is 18 percent or less.
Minnesota Administrative Rules 6120.2500 Definitions: Steep slope.
Subp 15b. "Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or development is either not
recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as
mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate
design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of
these regulations. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average
slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs.
Septic rules. Mn Rules 7080.2230 subpart B. “At-grade systems must not be installed in areas with
slopes greater than 25 percent.”
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose: To clarify how flags should be flown and what type of flags may be flown on City
Property.
2. Background: On September 14, 2020 Council approved a motion to fly the Thin Blue Line
Flag in support of the City’s police officers. Concerns were brought up about other flags
being flown and how the flags were being flown. On September 28, 2020 during the city
council meeting staff was directed to draft a policy regarding these concerns.
3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the flag policy.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Flag Policy
Item No.: 21 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Flag Policy
Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda
Section:
City Administrator
Report
City of Orono Flag Policy
1. PURPOSE
It is the intent of the City of Orono to establish a policy which follows the United States Code
and Minnesota Statutes governing the display of flags, including the United States flag, the
Minnesota State flag, flags that represent the United States Armed Services, POW/MIA Flag and
Flags honoring the services provide by the City to its residents. The flags represented here are
intended to honor and respect public servants in many capacities both living and deceased
thanking them for their sacrifices. Any additions must be approved by the City Council.
2. REFERENCE
• United States Code Title 4 Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the United States Chapter 1
the Flag: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title4/html/USCODE-2017-
title4-chap1.htm
3 . GUIDANCE
A. Display of Flags Outside Buildings
The City of Orono follows the United States Code Title 4 USC Chapter 1 governing the
display of flags, including the United States flag, the State flag, and other flags as
designated.
B. Display of Flags Inside Buildings
In addition to the above flags, other flags may be displayed on a permanent or temporary
basis within the building. Examples include the Sister City flag, the World flag, flags
received for awards which the City has applied (e.g., the Tree City flag), flags received
from visiting groups, or flags designating an event or accomplishment. All flags will be
displayed with authorization by the City Manager.
C. Flags Authorized for Flying on Public Property
-United States Flag
-Minnesota State Flag
-Flags Representing the United States Armed Services
-POW/MIA Flag
-Thin Blue Line Flag honoring Police
-Thin Red Line Flag honoring Fire
-Public Works Flag honoring Public Works
D. When will Flags be flown?
-United States Flag- Everyday
-Minnesota State Flag- when directed
-Armed Services Flags- when directed
-POW/MIA Flag- when directed
-Thin Blue Line Flag – Peace Officers Day, Police Week, Patriots Day
-Thin Red Line Flag- National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Day, Fire Prevention
Week
-Public Works Flag- Public Works Week
E. Half-Staff
-Flags shall be flown at half-staff when prescribed by the President of the United
States for days of national mourning, by the Governor of the State of Minnesota, or when
prescribed by the Mayor of the City of Orono. On Memorial Day and Patriot’s Day.
F. Where Flown:
-The United States Flag will be flown on the main flag pole in front of City Hall
-All other Flags may be flown on other poles on City Hall Campus so as to not
disrespect or violate the rules surrounding the United States Flag
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose: To acquire 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North property from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation
2. Background: On August 13, 2020, City staff presented the Public Works Feasibility Study during the
work session. As a part of this discussion Council agreed to move forward with land acquisition of 365
Old Crystal Bay Road North from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
3. Title and Environmental Review: The City has conducted a title review and Phase 1 Environmental
Assessment of the Property. Staff has reviewed the reports and finds no concerning issues that would not
constitute moving forward with the purchase of 365 Old Crystal Bay. The title commitment and phase 1
environmental assessment reports are attached as Exhibit C and D
4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the purchase of 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to Approve Resolution dispensing with statutory requirements for review by planning
commission of acquisition of property and Approving Acquisition of Property from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
Exhibits
A. Resolution
B. Form For Purchase of Land; Conveyance 2010-0082
C. Title Commitment
D. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
Item No.: 22 Date: October 12, 2020
Item Description: Land Acquisition of 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North
Presenter: Dustin Rief Agenda
Section:
City Administrator
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
A RESOLUTION DISPENSING WITH STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW BY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND
APPROVING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FROM THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”) is the fee owner of
5.85 acres of vacant land in the City of Orono legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto which it
has advertised for immediate purchase under the terms identified on its web site:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/row/propsales.html (“Proposal”);
WHEREAS, the City of Orono has completed an environmental and title review of the
Property and is satisfied with the results of the review’
WHEREAS, the City of Orono desires to purchase the Property from MnDOT for
$340,000.00; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §462.356, subd. 2 requires that the Planning Commission review
the City's proposed acquisition of real property for compliance with the comprehensive plan and to
report to the City Council in writing its findings; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 462.356, subd. 2 provides for an exception from the requirement
for review by the Planning Commission upon 2/3 vote of the City Council dispensing with the
requirement and finding that the acquisition or disposal of the real property has no relationship to the
comprehensive municipal plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono:
1. City Council finds that the acquisition of the Property under the Purchase Agreement
has no relationship to the comprehensive plan.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2. Review by the Planning Commission of the acquisition of the Property is hereby
dispensed with, the proposed transaction is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are
authorized and directed to execute all documents, and take all appropriate measures to acquire the
Property pursuant to the terms of the MnDOT Proposal.
ADOPTED, this 12th day of October, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Minnesota.
CITY OF ORONO
By
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A. The north 10 acres of that part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section
33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
south of the right of way of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company, formerly the Great Northern Railway:
which lies westerly and southerly of Line 1 described below, and westerly of the westerly right of
way line of Old Crystal Bay Road as now located and established:
Line 1. Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B16 as shown on Minnesota Department
of Transportation Monumentation Plat No. 27-M16 as the same is on file and of record
in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County; thence northerly on an
azimuth of 00 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds along the boundary of said plat for
101.45 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B17; thence on an azimuth of 270
degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 25.65 feet to Right
of Way Boundary Corner B18; thence on an azimuth of 00 degrees 48 minutes 59
seconds along the boundary of said plat for 79.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary
Corner B19; thence on an azimuth of 285 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds for 79.82
feet to Boundary Corner M23; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 49 minutes 00
seconds for 1183.44 feet to Boundary Corner M24 and there terminating;
Containing 5.85 acres, more or less:
Subject to the following restriction:
No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 12 from the lands herein conveyed; except
that access shall be permitted to Old Crystal Bay Road.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
VACANT LAND FOR IMMEDIATE PURCHASE
5.85 acres
LOCATED SW Quad Old Crystal Bay Rd., Orono, Hennepin
County, MN
Sale Number 139477
Conveyance 2010-0082
C.S.: 2713 (12=10) 903
Parcel: 16
AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
Transportation Building
Property Conveyance Unit
395 John Ireland Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55155
For further information contact
LandSales.Mn.DOT@state.mn.us
Or 612-322-0387
Web Site: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/row/propsales.html
State of Minnesota SALE No. 139477
Department of Transportation County of Hennepin
Location of Property: See Attached Sheets
Conveyance 2010-0082
C.S.: 2713 (12=10) 903 Parcel: 16
FORM FOR PURCHASE OF LAND
See attached sheets for the legal description and mapping of the land being advertised for sale.
The Price that MnDOT will accept is $340,000.00.
All purchasers should inspect the property and inform themselves of existing conditions as well as check with city and county officials
for zoning and development limitations. Purchaser agrees to pay all assessments (current or delinquent) taxes, closing costs and
deferred installments of assessments, if any, heretofore or hereafter levied against said real estate. State will pay state deed tax only.
The seller does not know of any wells on the property. The State of Minnesota will not furnish an abstract of title to the above-
described real estate.
The Commissioner of Transportation reserves the right to reject any or all purchases and to waive informalities therein.
After approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, conveyance will be made by quit claim deed upon full payment of the
listed price within Ten (10) business days.
ENCLOSED HEREWITH IS PAYMENT IN FULL IN THE FORM OF (CERTIFIED CHECK, CASHIER’S CHECK, OR MONEY
ORDER)_________________________ PAYABLE TO “COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION” IN (Personal checks or cash
will not be accepted and will cause the bid to be rejected.)
Amount of Purchase$______________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Purchaser Date
Address of Purchaser E-Mail of Purchaser Phone (Business, Home, Cell)
NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
C.S.: 2713 (12=10) 903 Parcel: 16
Sale Number 139477
Conveyance 2010-0082
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
I, _________________________________________________________, being
(Name of person signing this affidavit)
first duly sworn, do depose and say:
(1) that I am the authorized representative of _____________________________
_______________________________________________________________
(Name of individual, partnership or corporation submitting this proposal)
and that I have the authority to make this affidavit for and on behalf of said purchaser;
(2) that, in connection with this transaction, the said purchaser has not either directly or indirectly entered into
any agreement, participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive
purchase;
(3) that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the contents of this package have not been communicated by the
purchaser or by any of his employees or agents to any person who is not an employee or agent of the
purchaser, and will not be communicated to any person who is not an employee or agent of the purchaser, and
(4) that, I have fully informed myself regarding the accuracy of the statements made in this affidavit.
(5) Are you a current or former State of Minnesota Government Employee Yes No
If yes, please add department name and dates of employment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Signed: ________________________________
(Purchaser or authorized representative)
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This______________day of ________________, 20___
________________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires___________________, 20___
GRANTEE FORM
C.S.: 2713 (12=10) 903
County of Hennepin
Parcel: 16
Sale Number 139477
I request that ____________________________ Joint Tenants or Tenants in Common (circle
one), be named as Grantee(s) on the Quit Claim Deed for the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation.
______________________________
Signature
Please name the County in which the Grantee resides: _________________
If more than one (1) Grantee is to be named in the Quit Claim Deed, please indicate if the
Grantees are taking title as husband and wife.
Please return this form to:
Jennifer Bailey Matti, L.S.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Office of Land Management – MS 632
Shared Services Center – Property Conveyance Unit
395 John Ireland Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55155-1800
Site Sketches
NOTE: This map is not part of the bid form. This map is enclosed for the convenience of the bidder, to aid in identifying the general
location of the land being offered for sale. Outlines of buildings and other items of construction, which are shown on the map, may
not represent current conditions.
Note: Detail above of Pole Barn showing encroachment onto adjacent MnDOT property
Location Map
Legal Description
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue
Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the
Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 1 of 8
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
NOTICE
IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE
INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION,
OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE
COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE
PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE
COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY
OTHER PERSON.
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and the Commitment
Conditions, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy
according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date
shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both
the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured.
If all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, this
Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
Countersigned by:
Dennis J. Unger, Vice President
Authorized Countersignature
Land Title, Inc.
Company Name
Roseville, MN
City, State
For purposes of this form the “Stewart Title” logo featured above is the represented logo for the underwriter, Stewart Title Guaranty Company.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue
Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the
Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 2 of 8
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1.DEFINITIONS
(a)“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public
Records.
(b)“Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term
“Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title,
interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does
not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(c)“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means
authorized by law.
(d)“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to
be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment.
(e)“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued
pursuant to this Commitment.
(f)“Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each
Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
(g)“Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting
constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(h)“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.
2.If all of the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment
to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3.The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
(a)the Notice;
(b)the Commitment to Issue Policy;
(c)the Commitment Conditions;
(d)Schedule A;
(e)Schedule B, Part I - Requirements;
(f)Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and
(g)a countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
4.COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect,
lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any
liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other
amendment to this Commitment.
5.LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
(a)The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense
incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the
delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(i)comply with the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements;
(ii)eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; or
(iii)acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
(b)The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the
amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(c)The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have
incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered
to the Proposed Insured.
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue
Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a countersignature by the
Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 3 of 8
(d)The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good
faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(e)The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.
(f)In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the
Schedule B, Part I - Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(g)In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.
6.LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
(a)Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this
Commitment.
(b)Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this
Commitment.
(c)Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations,
representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject
matter of this Commitment.
(d)The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II - Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation
to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(e)Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized
by the Company.
(f)When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only
liability will be under the Policy.
7.IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and
policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8.PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the
Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is
delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9.ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or
less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the
parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/arbitration>.
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall
be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252-2029.
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to
Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a
countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 4 of 8
Transaction Identification Data for reference only:
Issuing Agent: Land Title, Inc.
Issuing Office: 2200 County Road C West, Suite 2205, Roseville, MN 55113
Issuing Office’s ALTA® Registry ID:
Loan ID Number:
Commitment Number: 619192
Issuing Office File Number: 619192
Property Address: 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Orono, MN 55356
1.Commitment Date: August 3, 2020 at 7:00 am
2.Policy to be issued:
(a)X 2006 ALTA® Owner’s Policy (6-17-06)
Proposed Insured:City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation
Proposed Policy Amount:$340,000.00
(b)2006 ALTA® Loan Policy
Proposed Insured:
Proposed Policy Amount:$
(c)_____ ALTA® _____ Policy
Proposed Insured:
Proposed Policy Amount:$
3.The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is FEE SIMPLE.
4.The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
State of Minnesota
5.The Land is described as follows:
See Attached Exhibit A.
Abstract Property
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Number: 619192
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to
Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a
countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT A
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A: The North 10 acres of that part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 118
North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the right-of-way of the Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company, formerly the Great Northern Railway;
which lies westerly and southerly of Line 1 described below, and westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of Old
Crystal Bay Road as now located and established:
Line 1: Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B16 as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation
Monumentation Plat No. 27-M16 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for
said County; thence northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds along the boundary of said plat
for 101.45 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B17; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 48 minutes 58
seconds along the boundary of said plat for 25.65 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B18; thence on an azimuth
of 00 degrees 48 minutes 59 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 79.00 feet Right of Way Boundary Corner
B19; thence on an azimuth of 285 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds for 79.82 feet to Boundary Corner M23; thence
on an azimuth of 270 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds for 1183.44 feet to Boundary Corner M24 and there
terminating.
Abstract Property
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B PART I
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Number: 619192
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to
Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a
countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 6 of 8
SCHEDULE B, PART I
Requirements
All of the following Requirements must be met:
A.The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may
then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
B.Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
C.Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
D.Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both,
must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
E.The record does not disclose any open mortgages. Confirmation of this must be made prior to closing.
F.The legal description provided, and described under Schedule A herein, is based on a Minnesota Department
of Transportation Monumentation Plat No. 27-M16 filed as Document Number 8207422. The State of
Minnesota took title to the subject property using a different legal description as described in Trustee's Deed
filed September 13, 2002 as Document Number 7814185. Therefore, we require approval from Hennepin
County as to the legal description contained herein prior to closing.
G.Satisfactory evidence of the authority of the person(s) signing on behalf of the State of Minnesota is required
prior to closing.
H.Quit Claim Deed from the State of Minnesota to the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
I.The standard form of Seller's and/or Purchaser's Affidavit, satisfactory to the Company, will be required.
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B PART II
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Number: 619192
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to
Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a
countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 7 of 8
SCHEDULE B, PART II
Exceptions
THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW
BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP,
FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and provisions of any lease or easement
identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1.Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public
Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of
the Schedule B, Part I - Requirements are met.
NOTE: Upon closing with Land Title, Inc., Item 1 on Schedule B, Part II will be deleted. The Final
Policy will extend coverage as to the gap between the Effective Date listed in Item 1 of Schedule A
and the date of recording of the instruments creating the interest to be insured.
2.Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land.
4.Easements or claims of easements, which are not shown by the public records.
5.Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
6.Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records.
7.General and special taxes and assessments as hereafter listed, if any (all amounts shown being exclusive
of interest, penalties and costs).
8.No coverage is provided for municipal code compliance matters and fees including, but not limited to,
utilities, right of way maintenance, water or sewer services, or fees for tree, weeds, grass, and snow or
garbage removal, police boarding, vacant building registration and zoning.
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B PART II
ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Number: 619192
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to
Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I - Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II - Exceptions; and a
countersignature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
LT File No. : 619192
008-UN ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance 8-1-16
Page 8 of 8
9.Any lease, grant, exception or reservation of minerals or mineral rights appearing in the public records.
10.Tax I.D. No.: 33-118-23-31-0013
Taxes for the year 2020: $0.00, Total, are 1st 1/2 Paid, 2nd 1/2 Paid, Base Tax: $0.00 (Exempt)(Non-
Homestead).
NOTE: 1st Half Taxes are payable on or before May 15th and 2nd Half Taxes are payable on or before
October 15th.
11.There are no levied or pending special assessments.
12.Rights or claims of tenants, as tenants only, under unrecorded leases, if any.
13.Resolution No. 1876 granting variance filed July 31, 1986 as Document Number 5136975.
14.Controlled access as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Monumentation Plat No. 27-M16
filed October 28, 2003 as Document Number 8207422.
15.If there are any questions regarding this Commitment, please contact Mark Haagensen at (651) 697-6191
or by email at mhaagensen@landtitleinc.com.
ASSESSMENT SEARCH
Requested By:Company:Land Title
PID No.:3311823310013 County HENNEPIN
Street:365 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N City:ORONO Zip:
Legal Description:
THE NORTH 10 ACRES OF THAT PART OF NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING SOUTH OF RR LAND EXCEPT ROAD, SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 118,
RANGE 23, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LEVIED ASSESSMENTS
Type of Improvement: Original Amt: Balance Payable: Certified To
NONE
PENDING ASSESSMENTS
Type of Improvement: Estimated Amount:
NONE
ORDER NO.:619192
Zone:1
NOTES:
Additional Fee
Epic Property Services, Inc. ** 12550 West Frontage Road ** Suite 205 ** Burnsville, MN 55337 ** 952-666-7410
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Email
Status:Complete
Notes:
Completed:8/18/2020
20 20
If HOLD, reason for hold:
# Assmt PIDs:# Recheck PIDs:
Completed by: Epic Property Staff
ASSESSMENT:RECHECK:
If HOLD, reason for hold:
Status:
House Act
DATE:
Good Til:
State MN